Copy 2 





*• • J 

_ INSTITUTE of . .. 

••••••*.. MuseumandLibrary 

SERVICES 

• • I 
• • • 




Exhibiting Public Value: 
Government Funding for 
Museums in the United States 


December 2008 
































































































INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES 

1800 M Street NW, 9th Floor 
Washington, DC 20036 
202-653-IMLS (4657) 
www.imls.gov 

IMLS will provide visually impaired or learning-disabled individuals 
with an audio recording of this publication upon request. 

Printed December 2008 in the United States of America 


Credits 

Produced by the IMLS Office of Policy, Planning, Research, and Communications, 
under the direction of Mamie Bittner, Deputy Director, and with consultation 
from Marsha Semmel, Deputy Director for Museum Services and Director 
for Strategic Partnerships 

Project Team: 

Celeste Colgan, Ph.D., Expert Consultant 

Carole Rosenstein, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University at Buffalo, 

Associated Scholar, Urban Institute, Co-Principal Investigator 

Carlos Manjarrez, Associate Deputy Director of Research and Statistics, IMLS 
(formerly with Urban Institute), Co-Principal Investigator 

Erica Pastore, Program Analyst, IMLS 

Kevin O’Connell, Congressional Affairs Officer, IMLS 

Ellen Arnold, Visual Information Specialist, IMLS 

Justin Reskin, Research Assistant, Urban Institute 

Mark Wolley, Research Assistant, Urban Institute 

Cover Photos: 

Left: Students discuss artwork on a tour of the Norton Museum of Art in West 
Palm Beach, Florida. Courtesy of the Norton Museum of Art. 

Right: An underwater viewing gallery at the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, 
Illinois. Photo by Brenna Hernandez. Courtesy of the John G. Shedd Aquarium. 


Citation 

Manjarrez, C., C. Rosenstein, C. Colgan, E. Pastore. (2008). Exhibiting Public Value: 
Museum Public Finance In the United States (IMLS-2008-RES-02). Institute of 
Museum and Library Services. Washington, DC 


Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

Exhibiting public value : museum public finance in the United States, 
p. cm. 

Written by Carlos Manjarrez, Carole Rosenstein, Celeste.Colgan, and Erica Pastore. 
1. Museum finance-United States. 2. Federal aid to museums-United States. 3. 
Museums-United States-Management. I. Manjarrez, Carlos. II. Institute of Museum 
and Library Services (U.S.) 

AM122.E97 2008 
069’.068-dc22 


2008055123 



IB&mmrorr-nur'B-es 




Institute of Museum and Library Services 
Exhibiting Public Value: 

Government Funding for Museums in the United States 

December 2008 



\ 

INSTITUTE of . .. 

MuseurriandLibrary 

‘ /:• SERVICES 

• • ! 






TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Dear Colleague.2 

Preface.3 

Acknowledgements.4 

I. Purpose of the Study.5 

II. Executive Summary.7 

III. Research Method and Process: A Brief Overview.13 

IV. Overview of the Museum Sector in the United States.15 

V. Public Hearings: Perspectives from the Museum Sector.30 

VI. Public Funding Sources and the Flow of Public Dollars to Museums in the U.S.42 

VII. Public Funding for Museums at the Federal Level.52 

VIII. Federal-State Partnerships in the Cultural Sector: IMLS, NEA, and NEH 

and the Role of State-Level Intermediaries.65 

IX. Public Funding for Museums at the State Level.74 

X. Public Funding for Museums at the Local Level. 84 

XI. Need for More Research.90 


















TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Appendixes 

A. Research Methodology.92 

B. AAM Museum Regions.96 

C. Federal Funding to Museums by State.97 

1. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, by State, 2000-2006.98 

2. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, Per Capita, 2000-2006 .99 

3. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, by State, 2000-2006 . 100 

4. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, Per Capita, 2000-2006 . 101 

5. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, by State, 2000-2006. 102 

6. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, Per Capita, 2000-2006.103 

7. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, by State, 2000-2006. 104 

8. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, Per Capita, 2000-2006.105 

9. Number of Grants to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA, and NEH, by State, 2000-2006.... 106 

10. Number of Earmarks to States by Fiscal Year, 2001-2006. 107 

11. Total Federal Dollars to Museums, Per Capita, 2006.108 

D. State Profiles.109 

a. Large States—Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan.110 

b. Medium-Size States—Virginia, Massachusetts, Washington.119 

c. Small States—Maine, New Mexico.127 

E. Interview Participants .133 

F. Participants at the Public Hearings Convened in March 2008.136 

G. Additional Tables: IMLS and NSF Grants by Program Area, 

Earmark Appropriation by Subcommittee.139 

H. Museum Public Finance Survey.141 


1 




























DEAR COLLEAGUE 



I am proud to present Exhibiting Public Value: Government 
Funding for Museums in the United States, the first-ever compre¬ 
hensive examination of the ways in which government at all levels 
support the museum sector. 

Since I was appointed Director of the Institute of Museum and 
Library Services in 2006, I have been encouraged to see the 
museum community’s energetic efforts to examine what public 
funding strategies could most effectively increase the capacity of 
museums to serve society. Public funding helps museums deliver 
quality services that strengthen communities, families, individu¬ 
als and the nation. This study documents the variety of methods 
by which the museum sector receives government support at the 
local, state and national levels. 


The study also exposes gaps in the network of public support for 
the nation’s rich and diverse museum sector. Government funding 
must be equitable and call museums to the highest standard of 
public service. I hope that this report sparks continued dialogue 
about how best to structure public funding to achieve such broad 
public policy goals as sustaining and preserving cultural heritage 
and advancing our nation’s goals for education, life-long learning 
and civic engagement. 



Dr. Anne-lmelda Radice 

Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services 


2 









PREFACE 


Museums provide the public with opportunities for lifelong learning and are vital stewards of our 
cultural heritage. This report proceeds from the premise that museums provide value to the Ameri¬ 
can public. Museums are widely acknowledged as educational institutions that engage with schools, 
families, and communities; they connect the whole of society to the cultural, artistic, historical, 
natural, and scientific understandings that constitute our heritage; and they collect and conserve 
tangible objects—animate and inanimate—for the benefit of future generations. 

The Museum Services Act provides the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) with 
a broad framework to achieve specific outcomes. As cited in the statute (20 U.S.C. §9171), federal 
funds allocated to IMLS are directed to museums for the following purposes: 

1. to encourage and support museums in carrying out their public service role of connecting 
the whole of society to the cultural, artistic, historical, natural, and scientific understand¬ 
ings that constitute our heritage; 

2. to encourage and support museums in carrying out their educational role as core providers 
of learning and in conjunction with schools, families, and communities; 

3. to encourage leadership, innovation, and application of the most current technologies and 
practices to enhance museum services; 

4. to assist, encourage, and support museums in carrying out their stewardship responsibilities 
to achieve the highest standards in conservation and care of the cultural, historic, natural, 
and scientific heritage of the United States to benefit future generations; 

5. to assist, encourage, and support museums in achieving the highest standards of manage¬ 
ment and service to the public, and to ease the financial burden borne by museums as a 
result of their increasing use by the public; and 

6. to support resource sharing and partnerships among libraries, schools, and other commu¬ 
nity organizations. 

Sec. 9172 of the statute defines a museum as “a public or private nonprofit agency or institu¬ 
tion organized on a permanent basis for essentially educational or aesthetic purposes, that utilizes 
a professional staff, owns or utilizes tangible objects, cares for the tangible objects, and exhibits 
the tangible objects to the public on a regular basis. Such term includes aquariums, arboretums, 
botanical gardens, art museums, children’s museums, general museums, historic houses and sites, 
history museums, nature centers, natural history and anthropology museums, planetariums, sci¬ 
ence and technology centers, specialized museums, and zoological parks.” 


3 





ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the many individuals and institutions who 
contributed to the study. More than 1,000 institutions from all six museum regions in the country 
responded to the Museum Public Finance Survey. This study would not have been possible without 
the significant time and effort of the museum professionals who represented their institutions in 
completing the survey and provided detailed financial accounts of their organizations. 

Hundreds of individuals and a whole spectrum of federal, state, and local agencies as well as 
other organizations contributed to the analysis of this report. The National Endowment for the Arts 
(NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), 
the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, and Citizens Against Government Waste provided 
the data necessary for the account of federal museum funding. In addition, NEA, NEH, and NSF 
staff greatly informed the research process through interviews conducted with the research team. 
Several national museum associations also made key contributions to the analysis during research 
and data collection in the field. These associations include the American Association of Museums, 
the American Association for State and Local History, the Association of Art Museum Directors, the 
Association of Children’s Museums, and the Association of Science-Technology Centers. 

At the state and local levels, numerous agencies provided the administrative data for analysis, 
and more than 80 professionals from museums, state and local agencies, museum associations, 
foundations, and other organizations with key roles in the state and/or local museum sector pro¬ 
vided hours of astute and informed commentary in field interviews and data collection for the eight 
case studies in Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 
Washington. The input from these resources in the field provided a depth of insight crucial to the 
analysis of state-level cultural infrastructure and the museum sector. 

The public hearings in California, Missouri, and Ohio owe their success to the panel members, 
IMLS Director Anne-lmelda Radice, and members of the National Museum and Library Services 
Board for their vital service and input in the conduct of the hearings. We are grateful to all those 
who participated in person and in writing for providing many perspectives from the museum sector 
and giving context to the data collected in this report. A complete list of interview subjects and 
public hearing participants is contained in appendixes E and F. 


4 






This study was developed in response to requests from several 
members of Congress and IMLS’s interest in developing a stron¬ 
ger body of knowledge regarding the state of public support for 
the museum sector nationally. The intent of this study was to 
collect and provide as much detailed information as possible for 
the development of sound, evidence-based policy. The material 
presented herein does not endorse any particular public funding 
mechanism. Rather, this report is designed to enrich the policy 
discussion by providing new information about the state of gov¬ 
ernment support for American museums. 

Previous research on museum finance has emphasized the 
role of private and foundation philanthropy and, more recently, 
merchandising as critical to the financial survival of museums. 1 
Though some studies have looked at the role public funds play 
in museum operations or private sector giving, they tend to 
focus narrowly on particular disciplines and their corresponding 


1 DiMaggio, Paul (ed.). 1986. Nonprofit Enterprise in the Arts: Studies in 
Mission and Constraint. New York: Oxford University Press; Feldstein, Martin 
(ed.). 1991. The Economics of Art Museums. Chicago: University of Chicago 
Press. 


5 

















PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 


museum types, such as the arts and art museums. 2 For more than a decade, the American Asso¬ 
ciation of Museums (AAM) has examined the financial condition of museums of various types 
through surveys with museum administrators. 3 AAM collects data that are vital for understanding 
the overall financial health and operations of American museums, and it does collect informa¬ 
tion about the receipt of public dollars. However, AAM’s study is not designed to provide a broad 
account of public investments at the federal, state, or local levels. 

This study set out with the following goals in mind: to understand the range of public support 
for the museum sector in the United States and to examine the scale of federal support for the 
sector, the relative contribution of public dollars to museums, and how museum stakeholders view 
the role and importance of public support. 


2 See Hughes, Patricia, and William Luksetich. 2004. “Nonprofit Arts Organizations: Do Funding Sources Influ¬ 
ence Spending Patterns?” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(2): 203-220; Alexander, Victoria D 1999 "A 
Delicate Balance: Museums and the Market-place.” Museum International 51(2): 29-34. 

3 Merritt, Elizabeth (ed). 2006. Museum Financial Information. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. 


6 








Pictured: A family at “please touch” exhibit, Draper Museum of 
Natural History, Buffalo Bill Historical Center, Cody, 
Wyoming. Photo by Josh Boudreau. 


This study provides the first major review of museum public 
finance in the United States. It explores public support from 
federal, state, and local government sources, focusing particular 
attention on levels of financial support and types of delivery 
mechanisms for public funding. The decentralized nature of 
public funding for museums in the United States required 
data collection from many different sources, using a variety of 
research methods. Data were collected from the administra¬ 
tive records of federal, state, and local government agencies; 
from national nongovernmental entities; from more than 1,000 
museum survey respondents; and from more than 100 individu¬ 
als through hearings and in-depth interviews across the country. 

For the purposes of this study, museums are defined in 
accordance with the Museum Services Act, which defines a 
museum as “a public or private nonprofit agency or institution 
organized on a permanent basis for essentially educational or 
aesthetic purposes, that utilizes a professional staff, owns or uti¬ 
lizes tangible objects, cares for the tangible objects, and exhibits 
the tangible objects to the public on a regular basis. Such term 
includes aquariums, arboretums, botanical gardens, art muse- 


7 








. 


■M 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


urns, children’s museums, general museums, historic houses and sites, history museums, nature 
centers, natural history and anthropology museums, planetariums, science and technology centers, 
specialized museums, and zoological parks.” Below, we summarize themes that emerged from this 
analysis and discuss the relevance of this research to the conduct of potential federal-state museum 
funding partnerships. 

Overview of Museum Public Funding 

The remarkable diversity of the U.S. museum sector is well known. Budgets, staffing, and other 
resource needs range dramatically across the sector, as do visitorship and the geographic reach 
of museum services. These differences exist within museum disciplines as well. Like the private 
sector, where businesses in the same service area can operate at dramatically different scales, 
museums within the same discipline may operate as small volunteer organizations in one commu¬ 
nity and multimillion dollar operations in the next. 

This diversity in the museum sector is also reflected in the variability of museum revenue 
streams. Museum Public Finance Survey respondents reported a patchwork of financial support, 
with institutions of all types reporting different combinations of revenue from earned income, pri¬ 
vate donations, government contributions, and institutional investments. While the majority of muse¬ 
ums in the sample reported receipt of public funds from at least one level of government —federal, 
state, or local—there was no consistent pattern of public support across the museum sector. In 
some museum types, more public support comes from one level of government. For example, on 
average, more than 50% of the public dollars reported by science and technology museums in the 
survey came from federal government sources. In contrast, local government dollars accounted for 
76% of government support on average for zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies. For other 
museum types, public support was more broadly distributed across levels of government. 

As a proportion of total revenue, government support to U.S. museums ranged between 7% 
and 33% by museum type. However, when government administered museums are removed from 
the analysis, the highest proportion of public support drops to 24%. A great deal of variation lies 
beneath this simple estimate. Because museums of different types have widely varied operating 
budgets, equivalent proportions represent radically different public dollar investments. For example, 
while science and technology centers and history museums reported similar proportions of their 
operating support coming from government sources, 30% and 32% respectively, the public dollar 
investment is quite different. For science and technology centers in the survey, the median public 
support was $289,970. For history museums, the median support was $32,182. 

Museum Public Funding at the Federal Level 

Museums receive federal dollars through a wide variety of federal sources. This study provides a 
detailed look at direct support to museums from the Institute of Museum and Library Services 
(IMLS), the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities 
(NEH), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), and from congressional earmarks from twelve 


8 







federal appropriation subcommittees over a seven-year period. In 2006, the last fiscal year exam¬ 
ined for this study, federal support across the five sources amounted to slightly more than $149 
million. Of this FY 2006 total, 44% was made up of congressional earmarks to museums, 23% 
came from NSF, 21% came from IMLS and 8% and 4% came from NEH and NEA, respectively. 

This review of federal-source dollars reveals a concentration of museum funding by discipline 
and geography. The disciplinary concentration is a function of museum grants flowing from federal 
agencies with discipline-specific legislated priorities such as NEA, NEH, and NSF. Discipline- 
focused grants result in a higher concentration of funds available for museum services that align 
with the specific disciplines that match federal agency priorities. In contrast, IMLS supports muse¬ 
ums as a sector, regardless of discipline. 

Geographic concentration of direct support to museums becomes evident when public finance 
is examined at the state level. Among the five federal sources examined, only IMLS provided direct 
support to museums in all 50 states in each fiscal year from FY 2000 to FY 2006. Among the 
competitive grant awards reviewed, more than 50% of the grants distributed during the seven years 
went to five states: California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, all of which 
have large museum sectors. Earmarks were slightly less concentrated by state than are competitive 
grants. Over the six years reviewed for this study, from FY 2001 to FY 2006, 50% of the earmark 
dollars for museums went to nine states—Alabama, California, New York, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—and the District of Columbia. 

While this study provides new details about federal-source dollars, much more information 
is needed to provide a full account of federal support to the museum sector. On the supply side, 
more information is needed about direct support to museums from federal government agencies 
beyond those included in this study. Federal dollars to museums flow through a variety of agencies 
across the federal government. It can be very difficult to track and analyze data from the possible 
range of agencies that fund museums because some agencies may not code grants to the sector as 
“museum grants.” The data obtained for this report identified museums only by name and loca¬ 
tion, limiting the kind of analysis that could be done. For the federal sources where data on direct 
funding to museums are available, more analysis is needed about the institutions that apply and 
receive support in order to assess which segments of the sector are most successful in securing 
federal dollars. 

On the demand side, the lack of a definitive list of museums in the United States makes it 
difficult to assess how deeply federal-source dollars penetrate into the sector. While the diversity of 
U.S. museums is one of the great assets of the sector and provides for an incredibly broad range of 
services to the public, it also presents very real challenges to determining the number of museums 
in the nation. It can be difficult to provide standard definitions for organizations that collect, con¬ 
serve, research, communicate, and exhibit such a wide range of the human experience. However, 
broad agreement is necessary to account for the scope of the sector and the range of museum 
services available in the United States. These basic statistics are needed for a more detailed 
assessment of how federal funding addresses the institutional needs of the museum sector. 


9 






EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



Museum Public Funding and Federal-State Partnership Models 

This study examined three federal-state partnerships that support the cultural sector and iden¬ 
tified among them a set of common mechanisms for distributing federal funds through the 
state-level partner. Each of the federal agencies allocates a base grant to the state partner and 
distributes any remaining funds by population and/or equal distribution among the states. All three 
models are designed to achieve some identified public purpose, each requires that federal dollars 
be matched in some proportion by state dollars or other nonfederal sources, and the grant’s use 
is conditioned by the distinct purposes of each of the federal agencies. In addition, state-level 
partners are required to implement statewide planning and evaluations, and some models require 
a public involvement process. As is true of some direct federal support to museums, funding for 
museums delivered through current federal-state partnership programs is discipline based. Decen¬ 
tralized funding mechanisms in the cultural sector are seen as a way to increase citizen access 
to cultural programming and as a means for helping states cultivate and promote initiatives that 
marshal their unique assets to address locally defined priorities. At present there is no federal- 
state partnership with the goal of increasing the capacity for public service to the museum sector 
as a whole. 

Museum Public Funding at the State Level 

Much like the decentralized nature of federal government support to museums, government 
support for museums at the state level flows through a variety of different agencies and funding 
mechanisms. However, the scope of these funding mechanisms and the available infrastructure 
to deliver museum support vary considerably among the eight states studied in this report. The 
review of cultural support systems in the eight states identified very different models for adminis¬ 
tering grants to museums. While some of the states provide support to public museums through a 
single agency, others provide support through multiple agencies for discipline-specific programs in 
the arts or humanities or for other targeted statewide initiatives. 

Support mechanisms for museums at the state level vary, in part, because the perception 
of the public character of museums is very different from one place to the next. In some states, 
public support flows primarily to museums that are state owned and operated. As there are no 
standards or accepted guidelines to follow in defining which museums are (or should be) eligible 
for public support, state programs tend to target different institutions depending upon understand¬ 
ings of the sector’s public value and mission as well as state-specific goals and priorities for the 
funding program. For example, public support initiatives in Illinois are available only to museums 
on public land, regardless of their governance structure. 

State-level support for museums may also vary based upon the financial condition of the 
state. As with other cultural support programs, state funding can fluctuate radically from one year 
to the next depending upon fiscal conditions. While federal matching grants to states may provide 
leverage for state dollars, the extent to which this leverage can hold in times of considerable fiscal 
restraint is unclear. 


10 






The review of eight state case studies identified state-level financial support mechanisms for 
museums in all cases. However, few states have agencies that fund across the entire museum 
sector. State public cultural agencies tend to serve the arts, humanities, heritage, libraries, and 
archives as distinct constituencies. A review of state-level capacities did not provide uniform evi¬ 
dence that a federal-state funding partnership would galvanize support and administrative capaci¬ 
ties at the state level. Although federal dollars may promote integration of the public cultural 
sector in some states, in others these federal dollars may prove a point of contention because they 
may challenge established agencies to develop new policies or to shift from discipline-focused 
practice in order to serve a broader cross section of museums. 

Museum Public Funding at the Local Level 

The study found a variety of local government cultural funding mechanisms, the largest of which 
were driven by targeted tax initiatives. Although large local investments do not exist in every state, 
some provide support in excess of the amount distributed by federal agencies for the entire coun¬ 
try. For example, in FY 2006, NEA distributed $12.3 million through competitive grants programs 
to 149 museums across the country, while that same year, the Scientific and Cultural Facilities 
District distributed $24.7 million to four museums and one performing arts center in Denver. 
Survey respondents and public hearing participants identified local government contributions as 
important to addressing needs such as capital projects and general operating support. 

The review of local government funding also reveals concentrated investments that may 
affect the character of a federal-state partnership for museum support. Like federal funding, 
local government funding appears to cluster within certain museum types. Among Museum 
Public Finance Survey respondents, local government sources accounted for an average of 50% 
of the public support received by art museums; children’s museums; arboretums and botanical 
gardens; and zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies. A question remains as to how the con¬ 
centration of these local initiatives might affect the ways in which states administer federal-state 
partnership funding. 

Future Considerations 

This report provides a great deal of new information about the magnitude of federal, state and 
local funding to museums and the varying methods for delivering financial support to museums at 
the state and local levels. While the analysis sheds new light on the current state of public finance 
and explores gaps in the distribution of public funding, more information will be needed to deter¬ 
mine whether and how a new funding model, such as a population-based state grant, could make 
a significant impact in addressing any identified gaps in museum services. An assessment of the 
impact of new funding models will require additional discussion about the purpose of new funding 
strategies as well as more information about the size of the sector and the character of museum 
services to be delivered. 





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


In accordance with its congressional mandate, the Institute of Museum and Library Services is 
working to address the need for more data about the sector and developing a more robust museum 
research program in consultation with state, regional and national museum organizations and other 
relevant agencies and organizations. The agency is committed to working with Congress and the 
museum community on analysis of potential new funding models. 


12 







Pictured: A visitor gazes up at the Oriental Institute’s colossal 
stone Lamassu (721-705 BC). Photo by Wendy Ennes, courtesy 
of the Oriental Institute Museum of the University of Chicago. 


In spring 2007, IMLS entered into a cooperative agreement with 
the Urban Institute, a Washington, DC-based research organiza¬ 
tion, to examine the following questions: 

• What mechanisms are currently used to deliver public 
funding from federal, state, county, and local governments 
to museums? 

• For what purposes are public funds allocated to museums? 

• How do delivery mechanisms impact the quality of museum 
services? Are there gaps? 

• Would alternative funding models, such as a population- 
based state grant, make a significant impact in addressing 
any identified gaps in museum services? 

With these questions guiding the data collection process, 
the Urban Institute conducted research by undertaking the fol¬ 
lowing activities: 

• collecting administrative data from the federal funding 
programs that provide the most opportunities for museums: 


13 























RESEARCH METHOD AND PROCESS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW 


IMLS, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Endowment for the Humanities 

(NEH), and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA); 

• collecting data from nonprofit entities that monitor congressional appropriations; 

• implementing a nationally representative Web-based survey of museums, the Museum Public 

Finance Survey, that asked several questions regarding the sources and uses of public funds; and 

• conducting eight state-specific case studies of museums and state agencies that fund museums. 

In its analysis, the Urban Institute used categories of museum type that were identified in the 
Heritage Health Index 4 : art museums; arboretums and botanic gardens; children’s museums; history 
museums; historical societies; natural history and natural science museums; science and technol¬ 
ogy centers; zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies; and others (such as tribal, multi-disciplinary, 
transportation, or specialized museums). 

This report draws heavily on the findings of the Urban Institute analysis provided by the research 
team headed by Carole Rosenstein and Carlos Manjarrez. 

Knowing that the research undertaken by the Urban Institute would provide a wealth of data 
concerning federal programs and cultural infrastructure in selected states, IMLS gathered perspec¬ 
tives from knowledgeable people to provide a qualitative dimension to the study. To that end, IMLS 
convened public hearings in Ohio, Missouri, and California in March 2008 and received written com¬ 
ments from museum professionals, trustees, public officials, and the interested public on the means 
and uses of public dollars to support museums. 

Finally, to address directly the question of alternative funding mechanisms, IMLS assembled a 
sample of 15 states and asked the two other cultural agencies with long-standing federal-state part¬ 
nerships, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, how 
museums were funded in those states. The examples provided by IMLS’s Grants to States program, 
NEA's State Arts Agencies, and NEH’s State Humanities Councils show various ways of providing 
funds through federal-state partnerships. 

Findings from the Urban Institute’s research efforts, together with data from federal-state part¬ 
nerships and perspectives from museum-interested people, form the basis of this report. 5 


4 Heritage Preservation. 2005. A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America's Col¬ 
lections. Washington, DC: The Institute of Museum and Library Services. 

5 Appendix A describes in greater detail the methodology used to produce this report. 







Pictured: An American flag made in 1865, showing new repairs, 
is rolled for storage by Mary Williamson at the American Textile 

History Museum. 






This section provides background information on the U.S. 
museum sector, with a particular emphasis on conditions rel¬ 
evant for assessing the potential impact of alternative funding 
models such as a federal-state museum funding partnership. 
One of the challenges to this task is that the groups of institu¬ 
tions that make up “the sector” vary greatly in terms of mis¬ 
sion, size, and operations, and they often defy simple attempts 
at categorization. Despite these differences, the services that 
museums provide to the public, whether in rural townships or 
major cities, form an essential part of the American cultural 
and educational landscape. 

We begin by highlighting recent research on the social and 
economic impact of U.S. museums. This section is followed 
by an overview of the institutions that make up the museum 
sector, examining their geographic distribution, their principal 
governance structures, and their funding sources. A better 
understanding of these basic features of the American museum 
sector is essential for understanding the potential impact that 
new public funding mechanisms may have on museums and 
museum services. 


15 
















mmm 


OVERVIEW OF THE MUSEUM SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES 


Visitation and Use of American Museums 

Recent statistical reports indicate that the museum sector attracts high numbers of attendees. 6 
Among household surveys of Americans, the use of museums and museum services is widespread. 
In 2002, the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators, a nationally 
representative phone survey, reported that 69% of adults surveyed visited a museum one or more 
times per year. The most recent household survey to report on museum attendance, Interconnec¬ 
tions: The IMLS National Study on the Use of Libraries, Museums, and the Internet, estimated that 
in 2006, approximately 148 million U.S. adults, more than 63.2% of the adult population, visited 
a museum in the United States. 7 

Among the national museum associations in the United States, reports of attendance also 
demonstrate that museums consistently engage substantial audiences of national and international 
visitors. Triennial member surveys of the American Association of Museums, as well as member 
surveys conducted by the Association of Science Technology Centers, the Association of Children’s 
Museums, and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, indicate that museums in the United States 
likely receive several hundred million visitors per year. These associations also report that millions 
of schoolchildren use museums and museum services each year. 

Cultural Preservation and Education 

America’s museums are community leaders in cultural and historic preservation, research, and edu¬ 
cation. Museums provide important services to visitors in these three areas and others. Across the 
country, museums are key contributors to the development and implementation of new and existing 
methods to enhance conservation and preservation of cultural heritage. Museums are both critical 
stewards and trusted community resources. 

The Heritage Health Index (HHI) conducted by Heritage Preservation and IMLS was the first 
comprehensive survey of the conditions and preservation needs of collections held in public trust 
by the nation’s archives, historical societies, libraries, museums, scientific research collections, and 


6 An important caveat to studies on museum visitation is the lack of a standard definition for what constitutes a 
museum visit. Attendance surveys vary greatly in methodology. Some counts may include any kind of entrance into 
the museum as a visit, some may include only transactions such as ticket purchases, and others may not distinguish 
between individual visitors and the number of visits. Attendance estimates from museums submitted across museum 
types are few, and most have very small sample sizes that are not representative of the museum universe. Compari¬ 
sons of household surveys are likewise compromised by variations in sample design and survey methodology from one 
study to the next, but they are cited here as the most recent and representative general estimates of attendance across 
museum types. 

7 Griffiths, Jose-Marie, and Don King. 2008. Interconnections: The IMLS National Study on the Use of Libraries, 
Museums, and the Internet. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, http://interconnectionsreport.org/. The 
figures provided here differ slightly from the first Interconnections report. These more conservative estimates adjust the 
sample based on a reanalysis of the survey data based on new weighting procedures that adjust for the effect of educa¬ 
tion. The differences in percentages between the NSF and IMLS estimates of museum attendance may simply reflect 
differences in sampling methodology and should not be taken as confirmed evidence of a decline in attendance. 


16 







archeological repositories. 8 The HHI emphasized the critical role of these institutions in the conser¬ 
vation and preservation of cultural heritage and identified baseline measures of the current condi¬ 
tions of artifact collections and the most urgent needs of institutions in charge of their survival. 
According to the HHI, these institutions hold 4.8 billion artifacts in public trust, of which museums 
hold 20%. 9 To ensure the preservation and conservation of such a magnitude of artifacts, the HHI 
made a series of recommendations regarding the critical importance of institutional policy for con¬ 
servation and preservation as well as the role that all levels of government and the private sector 
should play in their survival. Taking these recommendations into account, these institutions and the 
public and private sectors that support them have vital roles in the research and development of 
conservation and preservation efforts to ensure the survival of cultural heritage collections in the 
public trust. 

Furthermore, as centers of learning in communities, museum partnerships with schools pro¬ 
vide valuable curriculum support to K-12 education, engaging children of all ages both within the 
museum and out in the community. 10 It is estimated that museums in the United States provide 
millions of instructional hours per year to students, through programming that spans the range of 
museum type, location, and student grade level. Museum education services are delivered in a 
variety of ways, including on- and off-site activities with museum staff, teachers, and students; 
pre- and post-visit lessons; and educational programs that support school curriculum standards 
and learning objectives. * 11 Museum-school partnerships offer unique and exciting programs that 
extend beyond traditional curriculum and formal education models to create a collaborative network 
of learning approaches and environments that enhance K-12 education and set the foundation for 
lifelong learning habits. 12 In addition to transformative partnerships with schools, museums incor¬ 
porate families, individuals, community groups, and others into their educational activities and out¬ 
reach. Museum services address many stages of development in the lifelong learning process and 


8 Heritage Preservation. 2005. A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America's 
Collections. Washington, DC: The Institute of Museum and Library Services. 

9 HHI distinguishes historical societies from other museum types. 2% of artifacts are held in trust by historical soci¬ 
eties. HHI defines artifacts as rare books and manuscripts, photographs, documents, sound recordings, moving images, 
digital materials, art, historic and ethnographic objects, archeological artifacts, and natural science specimens. 

10 For a sampling of research on museum-school partnerships, see Rapp, Whitney H. 2005. “Inquiry-Based Envi¬ 
ronments for the Inclusion of Students With Exceptional Learning Needs.” Remedial and Special Education 26(5): 
297-310; Caniglia, Joanne. 2003. “Math in the City: Experiencing Mathematics Through Visiting Black Historic Sites.” 
Journal of Experiential Education 26(2): 70-74; and Rahm, Irene. 2006. “A Look at Meaning Making in Science 
through School-Scientist-Museum Partnerships.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education 
6(1): 47-66. 

11 Hirzy, Ellen Cochran (ed). 1996. True Needs, True Partners: Museums and Schools Transforming Education. Wash¬ 
ington, DC: The Institute of Museum and Library Services. 

12 Carslon, Neil. 2004. Charting the Landscape, Mapping New Paths: Museums, Libraries, and K-12 Learning. Wash¬ 
ington, DC: The Institute of Museum and Library Services. 


17 






OVERVIEW OF THE MUSEUM SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES 


encourage audiences of all ages to be actively engaged in educational programs and other museum 
activities both on site and elsewhere. 13 

Financial Impact of the Sector 

Evaluation of the impact of museums is a growing field of study. The economic contribution of 
museums to the community is one of many measures that informs an understanding of the public 
value of museum services. Impact studies for museums have primarily been conducted among 
individual institutions, though several notable studies have been conducted for museums at the 
regional and state levels. 

One national-level study, which measured the impact of museums as part of the arts and 
cultural sector as a whole, was conducted by Americans for the Arts. 14 The Arts and Economic 
Prosperity report estimated the impact of the nonprofit arts sector at the national level. This study, 
which estimated that the nonprofit arts and culture sector generates $166.2 billion each year, has 
spurred numerous studies of the economic impact of the arts and culture sector at the regional 
and local levels. 

More recently, impact studies of the museum sector have begun to incorporate a broader set 
of social and economic measures. For example, the Center for Creative Community Development, 
which conducted an impact study of the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (MASS- 
MoCA) in North Adams, Massachusetts, evaluated a variety of socioeconomic measures in the two 
years following the museum’s opening, including institutional spending, local and nonlocal visitor 
spending, increases in household incomes, and increases in employment in five different sectors 
of industry. In addition, because of heavy state investment in the new museum, the study exam¬ 
ined the return on investment for the government in terms of indirect tax revenues. The study also 
evaluated changes in property values, neighborhood stability, commercial development, and hotei 
tax collections. This multifaceted view of the museum’s economic impact revealed positive growth 
in all of the measures employed by the researchers and provided a detailed picture of the many 
ways in which a museum generates significant economic returns to a community. 15 

These are just some of the measures of the public value of museums in the United States, but 
this brief sampling demonstrates the significant role that museums play in their conservation and 
preservation efforts, research practices, contributions to youth and adult education, community 
participation, and economic impacts from the neighborhood to the nation. 


13 For a comprehensive review of museum learning and its research and evaluation, see Dierking, Lynn D., Kirsten M. 
Ellenbogen, and John H. Falk (eds.). 2004. “In Principle, In Practice: Perspectives on a Decade of Museum Learning 
Research (1994-2004).” Science Education 88, Supplement 1. 

14 Americans for the Arts. 2007. Arts and Economic Prosperity III. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts. 

15 Sheppard, Stephen C., Kay Oehler, Blair Benjamin, and Ari Kessler. 2006. Culture and Revitalization.- The Eco¬ 
nomic Effects of MassMoCA on its Community. North Adams, MA: Center for Creative Community Development. 


18 









Geographic Distribution of Museums in the United States 

Table IV.l offers one view of the distribution of museums across the United States. This table 
displays the 17,774 museums identified in a database collected by IMLS in 2002 by state and 
museum association region, with per capita distribution. 16 The range in the number of institutions 
across each region is quite large. More than 1,700 institutions were identified in the New England 
Museum Association region; the Association of Midwest Museums has just over 3,800 institutions. 
The counts for all other regions fall within this range. 

The range in the number of institutions at the state level is also quite large, with some states 
having close to 10 times the number of institutions found in others. For example, five states in two 
museum association regions have more than 900 identified institutions each. Those states are Cali¬ 
fornia, Illinois, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. At the other end of the distribution, eight states 
and the District of Columbia each have fewer than 150 identified institutions each. 

Population totals and population estimates appear alongside the museum estimates to provide 
a basis of comparison for funding formulas based on population. One important fact arises from 
this comparison: There is no clear correlation between the number of museums in a state and the 
state’s population. In other words, in a strict population-based formula, two states with the same 
population size may receive the same amount of federal support, but one could have considerably 
less to distribute per institution, depending upon the size of the state’s museum sector. 


16 The number of institutions represented in this table and in the map below is drawn solely from IMLS data. In the 
course of this study, a significantly larger list of museums was created by augmenting the IMLS data file with museum 
records provided by the American Association of Museums and the National Center for Charitable Statistics. However, 
systematic verification of this new, larger list of museums was beyond the scope this study. Therefore, the figures 
reported in this study are based on the comprehensive list collected by IMLS in 2002. IMLS is currently working with 
stakeholders in the museum community to develop a comprehensive baseline of museums for future study. 


19 








OVERVIEW OF THE MUSEUM SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES 


Table IV. 1. Population and Number of Museums by State and Region, 2007 


AAM Museum Region 

State 

Estimated 
Number of 
Museums 

Population 2007 

Museums per 
100,000 Pop 

New England Museum 
Association 

Connecticut 

354 

3,502,309 

10.1 

Maine 

263 

1,317,207 

20.0 

Massachusetts 

608 

6,449,755 

9.4 

New Hampshire 

167 

1,315,828 

12.7 

Rhode Island 

59 

1,057,832 

5.6 

Vermont 

289 

621,254 

46.5 

Region Total 

1,740 

14,264,185 

12.2 

Mid-Atlantic Museum 
Association 

Delaware 

86 

864,764 

9.9 

Maryland 

360 

5,618,344 

6.4 

New Jersey 

334 

8,685,920 

3.8 

New York 

855 

19,297,729 

4.4 

Pennsylvania 

1080 

12,432,792 

8.7 

District of Columbia 

73 

588,292 

12.4 

Region Total 

2,788 

47,487,841 

5.9 

Southeastern Museum 
Association 

Alabama 

284 

4,627,851 

6.1 

Arkansas 

159 

2,834,797 

5.6 

Florida 

477 

18,251,243 

2.6 

Georgia 

330 

9,544,750 

3.5 

Kentucky 

274 

4,241,474 

6.5 

Louisiana 

215 

4,293,204 

5.0 

Mississippi 

148 

2,918,785 

5.1 

North Carolina 

371 

9,061,032 

4.1 

South Carolina 

248 

4,407,709 

5.6 

Tennessee 

169 

6,156,719 

2.7 

Virginia 

655 

7,712,091 

8.5 

West Virginia 

166 

1,812,035 

9.2 

Region Total 

3,496 

75,861,690 

4.6 

Midwest Museum 
Association 

Illinois 

905 

12,852,548 

7.0 

Indiana 

331 

6,345,289 

5.2 

Iowa 

245 

2,988,046 

8.2 

Michigan 

342 

10,071,822 

3.4 

Minnesota 

282 

5,197,621 

5.4 

Missouri 

355 

5,878,415 

6.0 

Ohio 

903 

11,466,917 

7.9 

Wisconsin 

477 

5,601,640 

8.5 

Region Total 

3,840 

60,402,298 

6.4 


20 

































































mmm 


Table IV. 1. Population and Number of Museums by State and Region, 2007 (continued) 


AAM Museum Region 

State 

Estimated 
Number of 
Museums 

Population 2007 

Museums per 
100,000 Pop 

Mountain-Plains 

Museum Association 

Colorado 

320 

4,861,515 

6.6 

Kansas 

261 

2,775,997 

9.4 

Montana 

170 

957,861 

17.7 

Nebraska 

299 

1,774,571 

16.8 

New Mexico 

186 

1,969,915 

9.4 

North Dakota 

170 

639,715 

26.6 

Oklahoma 

467 

3,617,316 

12.9 

South Dakota 

208 

796,214 

26.1 

Texas 

631 

23,904,380 

2.6 

Wyoming 

112 

522,830 

21.4 

Region Total 

2,824 

41,820,314 

6.8 

Western Museums 
Association 

Alaska 

147 

683,478 

21.5 

Arizona 

238 

6,338,755 

3.8 

California 

1,344 

36,553,215 

3.7 

Hawaii 

94 

1,283,388 

7.3 

Idaho 

113 

1,499,402 

7.5 

Nevada 

118 

2,565,382 

4.6 

Oregon 

239 

3,747,455 

6.4 

Utah 

172 

2,645,330 

6.5 

Washington 

529 

6,468,424 

8.2 

Region Total 

2,994 

61,784,829 

4.8 

Totals 

17,744 

301,621,157 

5.9 


Source: Museum estimates are based on a 2002 IMLS inventory. State population estimates are based on estimates 
provided by the Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, December 27, 2007. 


21 





































OVERVIEW OF THE MUSEUM SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES 


While the three states with more than 900 museums each are among the most populous in the 
nation, other states with large populations, such as Florida, Michigan, and Georgia, rank far below 
these states in terms of the total number of institutions. Similarly, states with small populations, 
such as Vermont, Maine, and Nebraska, do not necessarily rank at the bottom in terms of number 
of institutions. The variation in the size of the museum sector relative to the state populations 
means that a strictly population-based funding formula would not provide equitable funding from a 
per-institution standpoint. This issue is discussed in more detail in the summary of this section. 

Figure IV.l displays the number of museums from Table IV.l in the form of a U.S. map. 17 
Though population centers are not directly identified on the map, it is clear from the clustering of 
institutions in the eastern part of the United States and in areas of the Midwest and the West that 
the spatial distribution of museums is highly correlated with population density and with certain 
features of the physical landscape. In the Southeast, museums cluster along the Atlantic coast 
and the Gulf of Mexico. Florida displays this pattern quite clearly, as museums cluster around the 
perimeter of the entire peninsula. The Mississippi River provides another example, as museums 
cluster on both sides of the river in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana. 


17 Because many of the museum address fields in the listings were post office boxes rather than a physical street 
address, the Urban Institute team geo-coded institutions at the ZIP code level. As a result, each point on the map 
identifies a coordinate within a ZIP code boundary, not the specific longitude and latitude coordinate of an actual street 
address. However, in most national, regional, and state-level maps, ZIP code-level coordinates produce a display that is 
very similar to maps with street-level coordinates. Readers should note that 12% of the institutions could not be geo- 
coded at the ZIP code level and are not represented in the national or regional maps below. 


22 






Figure IV. 1. U.S. Map of Museums 



Museum Regions 

• Museums (all types) 
New England 
Mid-Atlantic 
Southeastern 
Mountain-Plains 
Midwest 
Western 


Sources: Combined museum listing from Institute of Museum and Library Services, 
American Association of Museums and National Center for Charitable Statistics. 
U.S. Census Bureau population estimates provided by DataPlace. 



The Urban Institute 
Prepared by: Justin Resnick 
February 26, 2008 


23 


























































OVERVIEW OF THE MUSEUM SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES 




m 


Museums Institutional Profile 

The Museum Public Finance Survey (MPFS), which gathered responses from more than 1,000 
separate institutions, asked museum professionals a broad range of questions regarding their 
governance structure as well as the sources of their income and the uses of dollars received. The 
governance structures described by respondents to the survey are comparable to the breakdown 
found in previous studies. 18 Slightly more than 70% of museums in the United States are private 
nonprofit entities; the rest are publicly owned and managed by various forms of government, includ¬ 
ing state departments of natural resources, departments of education, public universities, and city 
and county governments. 


Figure IV.2. Governance Structure of Museums in the United States 


For-Profit Entity 



Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 



College or 

Nonprofit 

For-Profit 

Federal 

State 

Local 

Tribal 

Other 


University 

Entity 


The HHI identified a nonprofit museum sector of 69%, and the AAM 2006 Museum Financial Information study 
found that 72% of the respondents were nonprofit entities. The MPFS finding of 71.3% is within the margin of error of 
both studies. 


24 



















Median Income and Expenses 

In Table IV.2, the MPFS identified a range in median operating income from $153,630 for histori¬ 
cal societies to more than $5.8 million for zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies. Within the 
museum types, there was no significant difference in median income and expenditures across 
the country. 19 


Table IV.2. Median Income and Expenditures for Museum Sample, FY 2006 


Museum Type 

Median Operating 
Income 

Median 

Expenditures 

Total Operating 
Revenue 

N 

Art Museums 

$1,233,924 

$1,270,000 

$931,088,782.60 

132 

Children’s Museums 

$1,154,321 

$1,175,716 

$97,564,196.97 

41 

History Museums 

$230,000 

$228,000 

$328,133,515.10 

252 

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 

$1,327,608 

$1,210,410 

$115,686,204.80 

43 

Science and Technology Museums 

$2,218,977 

$2,637,462 

$269,970,751.37 

41 

Historical Societies 

$153,630 

$149,610 

$174,731,270.00 

135 

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 

$906,561 

$975,319 

$169,982,649.00 

29 

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 

$5,861,302 

$4,639,000 

$692,925,446.36 

42 

Hybrid and Other 

$620,500 

$589,903 

$49,678,098.60 

52 

Total 




767 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


Revenue Sources: Private, Earned, Investment, Government 

Income and expenditure reports provide invaluable information about the basic operating costs 
across the American museum sector. However, relatively little is known about the mix of revenue 
sources that make up these budgets. In the MPFS, both nonprofit and government-managed muse¬ 
ums were asked to report the source of their support across four possible categories: private dona¬ 
tions, earned income, institutional investments, and government contributions. Respondents were 
asked to report the amount each source contributed to their total operating revenue. These figures 
were then used to calculate the overall contribution that museums of different types reported 
receiving from each of the four sources. The results of this tabulation are listed in Table IV.3. 

As Table IV.3 shows, institutions of different types report significant variation. Focusing on 
the last column, readers will note that the average government contribution ranged from 7% for 
children’s museums to 33% for history museums. In the cases of history museums, science and 
technology museums, and zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies, government support exceeded 
private support. Six of the nine types of museums listed earned income as the single largest source 
of support. 


19 For a description of the research method regarding the assignment of museum types, see appendix A. Museum 
types for MPFS are drawn from categories used by the HHI. 


25 





















OVERVIEW OF THE MUSEUM SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES 


Table IV.3. Sources of Support for All Museums in Sample, by Type, FY 2006 


Museum Type 

Source o 

Support 

N 

Private 

Earned 

Investment 

Government 

Art Museums 

23.3% 

46.1% 

17.5% 

13.1% 

129 

Children’s Museums 

24.4% 

48.1% 

20.5% 

6.9% 

41 

History Museums 

32.9% 

21.6% 

13.2% 

33.2% 

235 

Natural History and Natural Science 

29.5% 

41.6% 

5.7% 

23.6% 

39 

Science and Technology Museums 

22.8% 

42.8% 

4.0% 

30.4% 

41 

Historical Societies 

32.2% 

21.5% 

24.7% 

21.6% 

132 

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 

34.1% 

28.9% 

13.7% 

23.3% 

29 

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 

17.4% 

60.3% 

4.2% 

18.1% 

39 

Hybrid and Other 

27.2% 

38.5% 

9.6% 

27.5% 

48 

Overall 

24.4% 

43.7% 

12.2% 

19.7% 

733 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


Table IV.4 selects out nonprofit museums by type to examine how this large class of muse¬ 
ums (more than 70% of the total) differs in terms of revenue sources. 20 In all cases but one, 
removing public museums from the pool resulted in a significant drop in the proportion of 
government contributions. Across museum types, history, natural history, and hybrid or general 
museums saw the largest drop when public museums were removed from the analysis, suggest¬ 
ing higher rates of public sector governance across these museum types. The single exception 
was among children’s museums, because 40 of the 41 institutions that broke out their operating 
support were nonprofit entities. 


20 There were too few respondents across museum types that were government-managed museums to report the 
same data for reliable estimates of government-managed museums alone. 


26 

























Table IV.4. Sources of Support for Nonprofit Museums in Sample, FY 2006 


Museum Type 

Source o 

Support 

N 

Private 

Earned 

Investment 

Government 

Art Museums 

23.0% 

48.1% 

18.5% 

10.4% 

101 

Children’s Museums 

24.6% 

47.8% 

20.7% 

6.9% 

40 

History Museums 

46.0% 

23.5% 

21.4% 

10.3% 

174 

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 

38.0% 

41.6% 

6.6% 

13.9% 

25 

Science and Technology Museums 

23.8% 

47.2% 

4.7% 

24.4% 

33 

Historical Societies 

33.9% 

22.1% 

26.8% 

17.3% 

120 

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 

34.4% 

29.0% 

13.7% 

22.9% 

24 

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 

17.6% 

61.9% 

4.4% 

16.1% 

31 

Hybrid and Other 

32.0% 

48.1% 

10.2% 

9.7% 

31 

Total 





579 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


Though the proportions listed in Table IV.4 outline the relative contribution from each source, 
readers should note that the widely varying operating budget sizes across museum types mean that 
the proportions listed in this table represent very different dollar amounts. To provide a sense of 
the amount of money these figures represent, Table IV.5 shows the median revenue for all muse¬ 
ums that listed revenue by source. 21 


Table IV.5. Median Operating Income by Source and Type of Institution, 
All Museums in Sample, FY 2006 


Museum Type 

Source o 

Support 

N 

Private 

Earned 

Investment 

Government 

Art Museums 

$429,775 

$190,393 

$56,250 

$144,802 

129 

Children’s Museums 

$357,550 

$490,345 

$600 

$50,000 

41 

History Museums 

$46,187 

$26,120 

$695 

$32,182 

235 

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 

$110,309 

$408,321 

$4,500 

$86,465 

39 

Science and Technology Museums 

$350,000 

$898,911 

$12,602 

$289,970 

41 

Historical Societies 

$32,727 

$23,000 

$3,023 

$7,751 

132 

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 

$251,355 

$253,226 

$14,128 

$130,000 

29 

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 

$437,706 

$2,686,310 

$15,277 

$911,480 

39 

Hybrid and Other 

$59,171 

$48,267 

$1,000 

$36,737 

48 

Total 





733 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


21 In the sample there were no statistically significant differences in the relative size of operating budgets between 
government-managed and nonprofit museums. Therefore, Table IV.5 lists the median revenue by source for all muse¬ 
ums, government-managed and nonprofit. 


27 



















































OVERVIEW OF THE MUSEUM SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES 


A comparison of Table IV.5 to the proportional estimates in Table IV.3 provides a fuller picture 
of the nature of public support across different institution types. In some cases, a relatively small 
proportion of operating budget can amount to a significant public expenditure based on the overall 
size of the subsector. In other cases, a relatively large proportion of public money (compared to 
other sources of revenue) may amount to a smaller public expenditure for a given segment of the 
museum community. 

Two museum subsectors illustrate this point clearly. While the estimated government support 
amounted to a relatively small proportion of the overall budget for zoos, aquariums, and zoological 
societies (18.1%), median support from government sources is the highest of any museum type 
($911,480). The opposite scenario is seen with history museums. History museums reported the 
highest proportional public contribution of any museum type (33%). However, the median govern¬ 
ment support among these institutions is just over $32,000. 

Section Summary 

In this section, we have reviewed some basic features of the museum sector, including governance 
structure, budget size, sources of financial support, and geographic distribution. The many institu¬ 
tions that make up this diverse sector preserve cultural heritage and provide educational resources 
and opportunities to communities across the country in great number and variety. The sector’s 
diversity is reflected not only in its substantive areas of expertise but also in the characteristics of 
the organizations themselves. 

These institutions vary dramatically in size, spatial distribution and, importantly for this study, 
sources of financial support. U.S. museums report a diversified funding base. Many of the institu¬ 
tions in the MPFS sample identified support from private donors, earned revenue, investment 
income and from government. Indeed, eight of the nine museum types in the study reported 
double-digit percentages of revenue from private, earned revenue, and government sources. 

In terms of public dollars, the average government support for museums of different types 
ranged from 7% to 33% of the total operating budget, with the majority of the institutions report¬ 
ing that 20% to 30% of their total operating budget comes from government support. Of course, 
the same proportion of public support for different types of museums does not mean that the 
dollar investments are similar. Because the cost of doing business varies so dramatically from 
one museum type to the next, these estimates represent dramatically different dollar values. Two 
museum types illustrate this point clearly. As a percentage of the total operating expenditure, the 
average public sector support for zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies and historical societies 
is quite similar (18% for zoos and 21% for historical societies). However, in dollar terms the level 
of public support for these very different types of institutions is dramatically different. Among zoos, 
aquariums, and zoological societies in the sample, the median public support level is $911,480. 
Among historical societies, the median public support level is $7,751. 

This comparison of proportional government investment in museums to the public dollar invest¬ 
ment raises an important question regarding the operation of federal-state partnership models. If 





a goal of a new funding model is to achieve greater equity in the distribution of federal dollars to 
museums, then the basis for this distribution requires greater definition. One perspective would be 
that equity is achieved when the proportion of government support is comparable across museums 
of different types. An alternative interpretation might be that equity corresponds, in some manner, 
to a comparable dollar amount invested across museums of varying types. However, each of these 
scenarios relies heavily on the assumption that the measure of equity is dependent upon the insti¬ 
tutional outcomes. 

Of course, a federal-state partnership may address other public policy objectives that might 
be considered institutionally neutral, such as promoting museum service and access to particu¬ 
lar segments of the U.S. population, irrespective of museum type, subject discipline, or delivery 
mechanism. The IMLS mission as cited in the Museum Services Act (20 U.S.C. §9171) reflects 
such institutionally neutral objectives. IMLS is directed to encourage and support museums in their 
public service, education, leadership, stewardship, management, resource sharing, and partnership. 
In other words, IMLS directs its funding to museums to encourage capacity building for the sector 
as a whole and to encourage the delivery of museum services to the whole of society. In this model, 
equity is based on access to museum services and the institutional capacity to deliver them across 
the entire sector, which is an important public policy objective to consider in shaping a federal- 
state partnership model for museums. 

Another issue raised by the data in this section, and which is relevant to the discussion of 
a population-based funding model, is the fact that the number of museums varies dramatically 
among states. There is no clear correlation between the number of museums in a state and that 
state’s population size. This fact would likely have implications for the conduct of a federal-state 
museum funding partnership depending upon the ways these programs are managed at the state 
level. For example, two states with identical populations could have significantly more (or less) 
money to distribute per institution if their museum sectors vary substantially in number. 


29 







Public Hearings: 
Perspectives from 
the Museum Sector 

1 


Pictured: At the hearing in Kansas City, Barbara L. Peterson, 
President of the Black Archives of Mid-America, spoke before 
a panel that included Dr. Radice and Dr. Colgan. 



To provide some context to the financial data presented in this 
report, IMLS reasoned that public perspectives were a critical 
part of the analysis. If indeed there are gaps in adequate and fair 
funding for museums across the country, people who work in the 
museum sector, as well as community members, would under¬ 
stand the issues and have useful perspectives that would inform 
the report. 

To that end, in March 2008, IMLS convened public hear¬ 
ings in Columbus, Ohio; Kansas City, Missouri; and Oakland, 
California. At these three sites, a total of 28 invited speakers 
delivered remarks to a panel consisting of IMLS Director Anne- 
Imelda Radice and members of the National Museum and Library 
Services Board. 22 These speakers came from many positions in 
the museum sector. Most were museum directors, some museum 
funders, some museum trustees, others museum association 
executives, and a few were museum advocates, active in their 
communities. Each participant delivered a 10-minute statement 


22 A complete list of public hearing participants is in appendix F. Further 
references to the comments provided at these hearings, if not apparent in 
the text, will be noted by date: March 10, 2008 (Columbus, Ohio); March 12, 
2008 (Kansas City, Missouri); and March 14, 2008 (Oakland, California). 


30 










PUBLIC HEARINGS: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE MUSEUM SECTOR 


reflecting his or her perspective about the best public funding mechanisms to support museums. 

All had been asked to focus their remarks on the most effective, most accessible, and most fair 
channels of public funding. 

The hearings were open to the public, and at each site, a number of people came to listen to 
the comments. After prepared remarks were heard, members of the audience had the opportunity 
to submit comments. At each venue, federal and state elected officials either had statements read 
into the record or appeared in person to speak. Twenty people from various organizations offered 
comments on the remarks that they had heard or offered points related to their own experiences 
and circumstances. 23 

In addition to the public hearings, IMLS issued a broad appeal to the public in general, solicit¬ 
ing written comments from those unable to attend the hearings but who wanted to provide their 
perspectives for consideration. IMLS received 32 letters in response to this call. Comments came 
from individuals as well as organizations. 24 

Several themes emerged from the hearings and written comments: 

Importance of Peer Review and the Grant Application Process 

Among the public hearings participants there was near universal support for the peer review system 
at the federal level and within other funding bodies. Museum professionals, association executives, 
grant writers, grantees—all commented on the value of peer review. The peer review system is a 
time-honored process widely used across the federal government and elsewhere in the museum 
funding community. In federal grant-making agencies, it has become a highly developed practice to 
evaluate the merits of grant applications by seeking the judgment of experts in the field. At the fed¬ 
eral level, these expert reviewers, who have vast experience in the sector, are recruited from across 
the country to evaluate proposals for the use of federal funds. Mindful of the goals and criteria of the 
grant program, these experts study a group of proposals and, in most cases, meet in Washington, 

DC, to discuss the relative merits of the applications. They advise the funding agency on the design 
and substance of the proposals as well as the potential effectiveness of the use of public funds. The 
agency head makes the final decision. Agency staff notify unsuccessful applicants of the strengths 
and weaknesses of their proposals, and often unsuccessful applicants are encouraged to submit a 
revised plan. As one speaker summed up the process, “The best get funded. The rest get advice.’’ 25 

Moreover, several speakers stated that the grant application process itself and the resultant 
competitive grant (should it be awarded) raise the quality of museum services appreciably. The time 
and energy invested in constructing an application demand that the institution focus on its strategic 
goals and assess its capacity. Patricia Murphy, executive director, Oberlin Heritage Center, described 
the process in Columbus: 


23 Transcripts of the hearings are available on the IMLS Web site: www.imls.gov. 

24 Written comments are available from IMLS by request. 

25 Marc Wilson, March 12, 2008. 


31 








PUBLIC HEARINGS: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE MUSEUM SECTOR 


Preparing the grant application for the Museums for America [program in IMLS] 
was a daunting, demanding, and rigorous experience, but I also found it to be quite 
worthwhile in that it demanded that we thoughtfully present our funding needs in 
relation to our organization's institutional priorities and plans. Our Museums for 
America Grant not only helped us to become a stronger organization, both program¬ 
matically and organizationally, but it also helped us to become a better resource for 
other small museums and historical societies in our region. 26 


Furthermore, speakers noted that federal grant categories themselves are constructed to raise 
the quality of museum services. Federal agencies make grant opportunities available by carefully 
assessing the needs of the museum sector and in response to national priorities. The IMLS grant 
guidelines follow closely the mandates that Congress placed on the agency to enable museums 
to carry out their educational and public service roles. NEH encourages applicants to respond to 
the national needs for preservation of, interpretation of, and access to their collections and other 
humanities-related projects. Deborah Schwartz, president, Brooklyn Historical Society, praised the 
“exemplary role” of IMLS and NEH in "identifying the needs of the field, and then in formulating 
dynamic, well articulated priorities for categories of grant making.” She commented: 


IMLS and NEH’s funding guidelines are detailed and rigorous. The guidelines are 
intelligent in design so as to compel organizations to fully assess proposed programs 
in order to ensure that the programs’ outcomes align with the organization’s mission 
statement and long-term goals. Without fail, the results of this rigorous examination 
process yield more focused programming that better serves an organization’s objec¬ 
tives and allows us to serve our public responsibly and efficiently. 27 


A final argument that was consistently made in support of peer-reviewed competitive awards 
is that a federal award leverages local funding support. Federal dollars attract more dollars and 
thereby expand museum services. Receiving a peer-reviewed competitive grant elevates the visibil¬ 
ity of the organization and serves to assist in fund-raising. The publicity that accompanies a federal 
grant draws attention to the excellence of the organization; it is, as a few mentioned, the “Good 
Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” Lori Fogarty, director of the Oakland Museum of California, made 
this point about receiving an IMLS grant: 


26 Patricia Murphy is executive director of Oberlin Heritage Center, Oberlin, Ohio, as well as vice president of the Ohio 
Association of Historical Societies and Museums. 

27 Written comments provided March 3, 2008. 


32 







A grant from this national organization, as recommended through a rigorous peer 
panel review process, indicates that our projects have met the highest standards in 
the field, adhere to criteria of quality and professionalism as established by our col¬ 
leagues, and serve as true models, thereby helping to leverage private funding. 


David Chesebrough, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of COSI (Center of Science 
and Industry) in Columbus, Ohio, succinctly addressed how the grant category, specifically the 
Museums for America (MFA) competition in IMLS, the process of writing the application, and the 
requirement for connections with the community increase the quality of museum services: 


[Wjriting Museums for America grant proposals ... forces discipline internally in an 
organization. ... Since it is evaluated based on an institution’s strategic direction, it 
encourages a museum’s staff and board to be clear and articulate about its stra¬ 
tegic direction. It encourages the museum to employ community input so that the 
museum is serving its community, not just itself. ... The MFA process also encour¬ 
ages partnerships. ... Partnerships are another way in which a museum connects to 
its community and leverages the federal dollars of an IMLS grant. 


Matching Funds 

The funding mechanism employed at the federal level is predominantly direct grants for projects 
awarded through a peer review evaluation system. But for some of these grants, the federal agency 
requires a matching component. Speakers were less enthusiastic about this type of grant. If the 
program requires the grantee to raise private money to match the federal award, the museum must 
find third-party resources, such as a donor particularly interested in the project. The participants 
who spoke about matching felt that this situation disengages the museum from pursuing its own 
goals and objectives and forces it to package a program compatible with its ability to provide cost¬ 
sharing. 28 

Julie Henahan, executive director of the Ohio Arts Council, which provides sustainability grants 
to art museums in Ohio, weighed in on this subject with an important distinction. Requiring match¬ 
ing funds for projects may compromise the intent of the project, but requiring matching funds for 
general operating support at the state and local levels may be less likely to affect programmatic 
intents of institutions and instead help leverage other sources of funding. Alicia Oddi, grants and 
services director, Greater Columbus Arts Council (GCAC), agreed, saying that GCAC’s philosophy 


28 It should be noted that IMLS requirements for grants with a matching component can include goods, services, and 
in-kind contributions, as well as third-party donations of cash. 


33 






.. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE MUSEUM SECTOR 


regarding matching funds has evolved over the years and that “organizations that receive operating 
support from us should have a well-rounded revenue stream.” But GCAC has relaxed the matching 
requirement for projects, moving away from one-to-one cash matches to accepting in-kind contribu¬ 
tions for the matching requirement. 

Public Funding Patchwork at the State and Local Levels 

There is no consistent model for how state and local governments channel public money to muse¬ 
ums. For example, Pennsylvania created the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 
(PHMC) to preserve the state’s historic heritage. According to Executive Director Barbara Franco, 
PHMC manages a $5,535 million annual grant program that is 75% funded from an allocation 
from the Pennsylvania General Assembly with the balance from a fund created from a 1% realty 
transfer tax. Grants from the legislative allocation go mostly (71%) for general operating support to 
eligible organizations; grants from the transfer tax go mainly for capital projects. 29 

As another example, Missouri has levied a nonresident Athletes and Entertainers Withholding 
Tax to support its cultural organizations. In FY 2005, this device produced almost $21 million, 

60% of which went to the Missouri Arts Council and 10% to each of the following organizations: 
Missouri Humanities Council, Missouri State Library, Missouri Public Television Broadcasting 
Corporation, and Missouri Historic Preservation. According to Gregory Glore, a museum advocate 
speaking in Kansas City, this tax served to elevate Missouri’s position from 49th in total spending 
on the arts in 2005 to 14th in 2008. 

A survey conducted by the California Association of Museums (CAM) in 2006 provided a more 
detailed funding picture for museums in that state. Among the points of information provided by 
William Moreno, a member of the board of directors for CAM, were the following: 

• California museums, on average, receive the highest percentage of their revenue from private 
sources, at 39.9%—more than twice the average percentage received from all government 
sources combined. 

• In 2006, fewer than one-fifth of California museums, 16.8%, received funding from the fed¬ 
eral government in their most recently completed fiscal year. 

• Local government provides the largest percentage of public funding for California museums, 
with 45.1% of museums indicating that they receive funds from local public sources. 

• In 2006, the following were the median percentages of a museum’s operating budget from 
government sources: 2.4% from the federal government, 3% from the state government, and 
10.3% from local government. 30 


29 Written comments dated March 10, 2008. 

30 March 14, 2008. William Moreno is executive director of the Claremont Museum of Art in Claremont, California. 


34 








The few museums that have a dedicated revenue stream coming from property taxes or sales 
taxes count themselves extremely fortunate. In explaining how Kansas City, Missouri, supports 
museums, Christopher Leitch expressed deep gratitude for the funding structure his museum 
enjoys. The Kansas City Museum at Corinthian Hall, where he is director, is supported in the main 
by a dedicated property tax. Other museums partially funded by the city receive their funding 
through line items in the parks budget, which receives an allocation from the general fund. And 
being supported from the general fund, as speaker after speaker identified, means that museums 
must compete with other pressures on the state and local budget, including health care, transpor¬ 
tation, and social services. 

Museums that enjoy a dedicated public revenue stream are able to plan that their basic operat¬ 
ing needs will be addressed and are left to seek money from elsewhere for programming support. 
Museums that begin each fiscal year without the promise of funds to cover operating costs labor 
to find money to remain in business. When state budgets and local economies are strapped for 
revenues, museums are sometimes encouraged to devise self-sufficiency plans, but as Mindi Love, 
director of the Johnson County Museum in Shawnee, Kansas, points out, “The cost to operate 
a museum and serve our visitors is far higher per person than the revenues generated by most 
museums. The median cost of serving one museum visitor is $23, compared to the median revenue 
earned of $6 per visitor.” 31 

Needs of Small to Midsize Museums 

Many participants felt that museums with large budgets and a sizeable visitorship are consistently 
more competitive in receiving federal grants. As important as federal awards are to the museums 
that receive them, many participants felt that these awards are mostly earned by museums with 
the resources to have grant writers on staff, knowledgeable trustees to assist them in defining their 
strategic direction, and the capacity and experience to administer federal funds. Marc Wilson, 
director of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri, commented on how the peer 
review system on the federal level favors large institutions: 


The peer review system encourages and rewards excellence in the name of maximiz¬ 
ing public benefits and ensuring the most effective, efficient use of public funding. 
... But smaller institutions especially have a hard time competing because they do 
not often have the same levels of capacity, of expertise, and even of outlook. It is 
not that their missions and goals are not valuable. They are. They have a more diffi¬ 
cult time being successful in a system that favors excellence of performance criteria 
and accountability to use taxpayers’ monies efficiently. 


31 March 12, 2008. Ms. Love cited research conducted by the American Association of Museums. 


35 







PUBLIC HEARINGS: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE MUSEUM SECTOR 


For some small to midsize museums, the accountability requirements connected with receiv¬ 
ing federal funds make applying for them unattractive. Kate Viens, executive director of the New 
England Museum Association, cited the example of a group of museums in southern Maine. This 
group seeks to raise the standard of conservation for museum objects within its region, but at the 
outset decided not to apply for federal funding because “they consider the application and report¬ 
ing requirements to be too onerous.” 32 

Several participants spoke to small and midsize museums’ need for basic stabilization support. 
It was often said that the current federal competitive grant system ensures that large museums 
thrive and that small museums continue to struggle to exist. As one speaker pointed out, “Over 
time the rich get richer, and the smaller organizations are always in bootstrap mode.” 33 

Mindi Love, director of the Johnson County Museum, spoke to the number of small museums 
in the sector: “Today’s museums are largely small and largely rural. History museums and histori¬ 
cal societies make up the largest percentage (67%) of all museums, which number approximately 
17,500. Of those, about 35% are accessible to the public at no cost, according to information 
gathered by the largest museum service organization, the American Association of Museums. Of 
the 65% that do charge an admission fee, 60% offer free days and virtually all (98%) offer dis¬ 
counted admissions.” 34 

As executive director of the Mid-America Arts Alliance, Mary Kennedy McCabe is close to small 
communities and their museums in the middle of America: specifically, in Arkansas, Kansas, Mis¬ 
souri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. She offered statistics that underscore the needs of small 
museums: 

• 50% of all Missouri museums report having no full-time paid staff; 

• 61% of all museums in Oklahoma operate with less than $100,000 annually, and 37% operate 
with $25,000 or less; 

• 75% of Texas’s small and midsize museums have not received any training in the past three 
years in board management, fund-raising, or administration/finance; 

• 76% of Kansas museums spend less than $1,000 in total annually to train all of their staff, 
trustees, and volunteers combined; 


32 March 12, 2008. 

Richard Winefield, March 14, 2008. IMLS funds more museums in every state than do the other three federal 
agencies. (See Table IV.3.) Furthermore, IMLS sponsors funding opportunities that specifically invite small to midsize 
museums; for example, the Bank of America/IMLS American Heritage Preservation Program is tailored to small and 
midsize museums, archives, and libraries. 

34 March 12, 2008. 


36 









• 70% of Arkansas museums cite “lack of funding” as the primary obstacle to pursuing staff and 
volunteer training; 

• 71% of Nebraska museums are located in communities with a population of 10,000 or less. 35 

Funding Mechanisms for Small and Midsize Museums 

As broad as the consensus was among the hearing participants about the needs of small to midsize 
museums, there was wide disparity about how to address those needs. The idea most frequently 
mentioned was to establish within IMLS a funding mechanism that mirrors the federal-state part¬ 
nership funding models designed for our nation’s libraries. 36 Speakers at each site spoke directly in 
favor of federal formula funding for museums, often identifying themselves as members of the Fed¬ 
eral Formula Grant Coalition. The Federal Formula Grant Coalition, made up of more than 56 local, 
state, regional, and national associations, proposes an increase in museum funding through IMLS, 
specifically dedicated to a state-based program and not to replace any existing IMLS programs or 
any other federal or state programs. 

The Coalition conducted a survey early in 2008 to investigate the readiness of the states to 
administer federal funds on the basis of population. Of the 48 known state museum associations, 
31 responded to the survey, which found that: 

• At least 12 states already have a state agency or commission that administers grants 
for museums. 

• These grants are all awarded through a competitive process. 

• Half of these states provide general operating support for the museums. 

Also, the Coalition’s survey found that state competitive grant programs for museums fund a 
variety of programs or services: for example, 83.3% of the grant programs fund exhibits, 66.7% 
support education programs and collections/conservation, and 58.3% fund capital projects. 

Those who identified the need for federal formula funding gave several arguments in support of 
a state-based program. In California, Phil Kohlmetz talked about its potential for efficiency (“most 
of the administration will take place at the state and not the federal level”) and effectiveness 
(“each state will be able to decide how best to use the funds. . . it will be a new, sorely needed 
source of support for the stewards of America’s culture”). In Ohio, Bill Laidlaw explained that for¬ 
mula funding would be successful, saying that “mechanisms can be set up in each state, perhaps 
using existing organizations, to receive and disburse funds, to organize and prioritize planning, to 
raise levels of achievement and to evaluate results.” In Missouri, Mary Kennedy McCabe stated that 
“a major boost in the museum funding that is on par with public libraries is long overdue.” 


35 March 12, 2008. 

36 See section IX for a description of the Library Grants to States program. 


37 






PUBLIC HEARINGS: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE MUSEUM SECTOR 


IMLS also received written comments in favor of federal formula funding for museums. Anne 
Ackerson, director, Museum Association of New York, pointed to New York’s system of chartering 
museums according to a set of recently upgraded standards. Writing specifically about New York’s 
situation, she contended that— 


Federal support of museum general operations, preferably as formula grants, 
recognizes and supports the educational contributions these institutions make to 
Preschool-16 students and their teachers (annually 6.6 million school children), and 
to scholars, to lifelong learners, and casual visitors totaling more than 50 million 
people every year. 


Supporting the concept of formula funds for museum services, Ralph Lewin, executive director 
of the California Council for the Humanities, suggested that rather than a state government agency, 
the state entity charged with administering museum services should be a nonprofit organization, 
much like the NEH-sponsored state humanities councils. He explained, “In establishing these 
nonprofit museum organizations, you would also be creating strong, independent advocates for 
museums in each state. The establishment of these nonprofit museum organizations would not be 
an easy task, but it would be easier than creating a new state agency in each state.” 

Some speakers expressed skepticism about federal-state partnership funding models. David 
Chesebrough, president and CEO of COSI in Columbus, worried about whether federal dollars 
would be well used in a state-based program, thinking that merit may give way to the impulse to 
spread money broadly: “There are many museums, often small, but not always, that are unable, 
unwilling, or unskilled in creating value for their communities with the federal investment.” 

Dennis Bartels, executive director of the Exploratorium in San Francisco, cited the example of 
the Eisenhower program authorized in 1998, which distributed 85% of a $200 million program by 
means of formula grants to school districts for the purpose of improving science and math educa¬ 
tion. The remaining 15% was reserved for competitive grants. When the Government Accounting 
Office evaluated the program, only the programs supported by competitive grants “showed clear 
and substantially positive differences for the teachers and kids.” 

Mechanisms That Encourage Collaboration 

Other ideas about aiding small and midsize museums abounded. Among them were for federal 
granting agencies to sort applications by institution size and type. 37 Another was a fast-track pro¬ 
gram with simplified application processes and reporting. Another was to encourage a collaboration 
component to the use of funds awarded through competitive grants. Marc Wilson, director of the 


The IMLS Museums for America grant program arranges its competitive grant process so that museums of similar 
type and budget size are grouped together. 


38 






Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, saw an exciting possibility for large museums. Calling 
America’s large museums “centers of excellence and capability” making up the “most remarkable 
museum system in the world,” he observed that the system has nonetheless fallen short: 


[l]n my view, we have failed to employ these centers of capability to serve as agents 
of improvement for smaller institutions that reside in the service regions of the 
large institutions. I, for one, would be eager and pleased to redirect a share of the 
expertise, the intelligence, and the passion of the large, highly capable staff of 
my museum into a program intended to transfer knowledge and best practices to 
smaller institutions. ... This is not a one-way street, an avenue of condescension 
running from large to small. It is a two-way street occupied by professionals who 
share common goals and passions that unite us regardless of institutional size or 
scope. Harness that passion and we can do wonders. 


Bill Laidlaw, executive director of the Ohio Historical Society, also took up the need for collabo¬ 
ration. Consistent with his support for the Coalition’s efforts, he expressed the need for “collective 
improvement” of American museums. He observed, “We must work together to improve our profes¬ 
sional skills. From art museums and botanical gardens to zoos, we must do a better job of planning 
for our future and helping each other strengthen our ability to perform our functions. Collaboration, 
not competition, must be the dominant model in the future if we are all to succeed.” 

Many speakers cautioned against pitting museums against one another to struggle for the few 
federal dollars available. A few had concerns about state-administered population-based formula 
funds, worrying that IMLS could not reasonably expect an increase in funding at the level that 
would support such a model and keep intact its national competitive grant program. As Ford Bell, 
president of the American Association of Museums, pointed out, “The idea of a funding stream 
administered by the states has much merit; however, is not practical if the amount to be distrib¬ 
uted is not far higher than current levels.” 38 Richard Winefield, executive director of the Bay Area 
Discovery Museum, also mulled over the amount of money it would take to mount a state-based 
program for museum services and thought that the most prudent idea was to continue to make 
competitive grants but to reenergize efforts to engage small museums. “It’s important that mar¬ 
quee museums continue to thrive, and equally important that smaller museums continue to exist.” 39 


38 


39 


Written comments dated March 21, 2008. 
March 14, 2008. 







—-I- 

PUBLIC HEARINGS: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE MUSEUM SECTOR 


Other Points/Opinions 

Earmarks. In Kansas City, one speaker whose museum had just received an earmark gave a pas¬ 
sionate defense of the practice. On the same panel, another speaker, who expressed profound 
respect for the earmark-receiving museum, nonetheless cautioned against the practice. Earmarks, 
in his view, have the capacity to disconnect the award of taxpayers’ money from merit. 

Measures of Effective Funding. Citing the societal benefits of museums in Columbus, John Frazer, 
director of public research and evaluation at the Wildlife Conservation Society, gave compelling 
statistics and examples of how zoos and aquariums engage families, are trusted sources of envi¬ 
ronmental information, and help people develop stronger relationships with nature. As such, public 
funds are most effectively used to advance museums, and IMLS should “measure its funding effec¬ 
tiveness through contributions to knowledge and professional advancement across the industry.” 

He added, “There is an urgent need for IMLS to produce and disseminate information to local, 
state, and federal governments about the social benefits that flow from having a well-supported, 
publicly financed museum sector across the nation.” 

Michael Bauman, executive director of the Missouri Humanities Council, suggested that the 
quality of the visitor's experience should be the measure of excellence, saying, “Collections, by 
themselves, do not engage our interest and help us think more widely, more deeply, more critically. 
People do that. To improve America's museums, we have to do everything we can to bring the 
visitor’s experience to the forefront of our ideology.” 40 

Ways to Gain Community Support 

Some participants spoke enthusiastically of their success in gaining community donations. For 
example, Kansas City has initiated a metropolitan-wide workplace giving campaign, similar to 
United Way, to support nonprofit arts organizations. The National Underground Railroad Freedom 
Center in Cincinnati has undertaken a national campaign to encourage 50,000 donors to contribute 
a minimum of $20 each. The resulting goal of $1 million is being used to form a bedrock of private 
support for the museum and its services. 

Eligibility to Apply for Other Federal-Funded Education Programs 

In Oakland, Dennis Bartels called attention to the fact that museums, many of which actually 
operate after-school programs, are not eligible to apply for federal funding under the guidelines 
promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education. More than 25 years ago, the Mott Foundation 
mounted a program to provide funds to community-based organizations to provide after-school 
learning. When the Department of Education took over the administration of the program, only 
schools became eligible for after-school funding. 41 


40 Written comments dated March 10, 2008. 

41 At present, museums are eligible for some Department of Education grant programs. 


40 







Section Summary 

Throughout these hearings, the public weighed in on funding challenges and mechanisms for 
museums, highlighting the strengths and benefits of the competitive grants process, characterizing 
the landscape of state and local support for museums, and identifying the challenges that small 
and midsize museums face and the potential for museums of all sizes to be more integrated as a 
sector. Participants also contributed their views on how museum funding could be affected by new 
federal-state partnerships and on how existing mechanisms could encourage more collaboration in 
the field. 

Two themes emerged from the spoken and written comments that can inform thinking and 
planning for a potential federal-state partnership in support of museums. The most prominent 
theme was the value of the competitive grant process, particularly the peer review process and the 
effect not only of the actual awards but of the grant application process in increasing the quality of 
museum services. Competitive grants programs at the federal level were cited as mechanisms that 
directly respond to national priorities and the needs of the nation’s museums, raising the quality of 
service by the museum sector and leveraging other sources of support in the community. 

The second theme was the consensus among participants about the needs of small to midsize 
museums, as well as the need for greater collaboration among museums of all sizes. However, there 
was disparity over how best to address these needs and the potential implications of a federal-state 
partnership for the museum sector. Throughout these hearings, a lack of consensus emerged about 
whether a formal federal-state partnership would be the best way to channel federal dollars to 
museums, given current levels of agency funding. A strong and well-organized group of advocates 
have argued for this model. But there are other, opposing voices within the museum community. 

It is vital for policymakers in such situations to consider solid, reliable evidence that can inform 
decisions about how best to direct federal dollars in ways that both build museum capacities and 
increase the reach of museum services. The following sections of this report mark an important 
step toward providing such evidence. 






This section defines a variety of mechanisms and purposes for 
public support for museums and discusses some of the ways 
these funds are distributed through various levels of government. 
It concludes with data from the section of the MPFS that reports 
on government contributions by source and type, as well survey 
items that ask respondents to report on the availability of state 
and local support. 

Overview of the Public Funding Process 

The most common source of public support for American muse¬ 
ums, most of which are nonprofit entities, comes in the form of 
forgone taxes from 501(c)(3) organizations and their donors. 42 
Federal, state, and local authorities do not tax revenues gener¬ 
ated from activities that are directly related to the missions of 
nonprofit museums. Consequently, qualified museums can use 
substantially more of their revenues than commercial ventures 
can. Also, qualified private donors receive a tax deduction and 
are thereby encouraged to contribute to museums. This public 


Schuster, J. Mark. 1998. “Neither Public nor Private: The Hybridization of 
Museums.” Journal of Cultural Economics 22(2-3): 127-150. 


42 























PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES AND THE FLOW OF PUBLIC DOLLARS 
TO MUSEUMS IN THE U.S. 


support in the form of forgone taxes allows museums to use revenues from memberships and 
general donations more fully. 43 

Direct financial support for American museums comes through a wide variety of mechanisms. 
Figure VI.1 depicts three major pathways through which public dollars flow to individual museums: 
lump-sum appropriations, earmarks, and line items. 

Figure VI. 1. Basic Flow of Public Money to Museums 



Lump-sum appropriations to government agencies, which are provided through the federal, 
state, or local appropriations system, support the missions of the agencies and leave decisions 
regarding grant programs to the agency leaders. The agencies may allocate these funds to other 
government or nonprofit entities. Once allocated, these funds are typically distributed through com¬ 
petitive grant programs. These programs, also known as grant opportunity programs, provide public 
funds to museums on the federal, state, and local levels. Competitive grants are typically awarded 
through a peer review process. Experts in the field, serving on peer review panels, provide the 
agency head with recommendations about which activities to fund. Ultimately, the decision about 
which projects to fund rests with the head of the agency. 


43 Revenue generated from regularly occurring trade or business that is not substantially related to the exempt pur¬ 
poses of a museum could be subject to Unrelated Business Income Tax. www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p598.pdf. 


43 




























PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES AND THE FLOW OF PUBLIC DOLLARS 
TO MUSEUMS IN THE U.S. 


Earmarks attached to the spending authority legislation of departments and agencies are 
consistent with the authorizing statute of those government entities. That is, when earmarks are 
attached to federal grant-making agencies, such as IMLS, the appropriating body directs that 
money be given to specific museums for programs that fall within the mission of the agency. Ear¬ 
marks do not employ a formal peer review. 

Line items are specific funding directives in an appropriations bill. More common in state, 
county, or city budgets than in federal budgets, line items may direct funding to a specific museum 
or to a nonprofit group that will support museum activities. Line items are recurring, dedicated 
funding allocations within an appropriations bill. 

Though most museums are eligible to receive monies through one or more of these public 
funding pathways, the amount of public money that makes its way to museums varies considerably 
by museum type and by level of government. The section below provides information from Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) administrative data (Form 990) and the MPFS and details the manner and 
type of support museums receive from varying levels of government. 

Government Revenue Sources: Federal, State, Local 

Most institutions report some form of government support. Table VI.1, which presents data from 
the MPFS, lists the percentage of respondents in a given category that cite some form of govern¬ 
ment support. Across most museum types, more than 50% of the respondent institutions reported 
some form of financial support from at least one level of government. 

However, when looking at specific sources of support, differences in government support 
become more pronounced for some museum types. Among the MPFS respondents, science and 
technology museums were much more likely to report support from federal sources than any other 
type of museum. Museums in the “hybrid and other” category, which include general museums 
and culturally specific institutions, were more likely to report state support than local or federal 
support, and historical societies were much more likely to report local support than federal or state 
support. Other types of institutions reported a relatively high likelihood of government support 
across federal, state, and local sources. For example, more than 50% of the children’s museums 
and arboretums and botanical gardens that responded to the survey reported support from federal, 
state, and local sources. 


44 








Table VI. 1. Museums Reporting Government Contributions by Source and Type 


Museum Type 

Source of Support 

N 

Some 

Federal 

Support 

Some 

State 

Support 

Some 

Local 

Support 

Some 

Tribal 

Support 

Some 

Government 
Support 
(any source) 

Art Museums 

41.7% 

72.2% 

52.2% 

5.2% 

62.5% 

129 

Children’s Museums 

51.6% 

74.2% 

80.6% 

0.0% 

64.6% 

41 

History Museums 

30.4% 

50.3% 

68.1% 

0.5% 

59.1% 

235 

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 

36.4% 

63.6% 

69.7% 

3.0% 

60.0% 

39 

Science and Technology Museums 

62.9% 

48.6% 

38.9% 

0.0% 

72.9% 

41 

Historical Societies 

21.2% 

44.7% 

71.8% 

1.2% 

47.2% 

132 

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 

52.6% 

63.2% 

57.9% 

0.0% 

55.9% 

29 

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 

18.9% 

22.6% 

20.8% 

0.0% 

69.8% 

39 

Hybrid and Other 

30.6% 

63.9% 

41.7% 

11.1% 

42.9% 

48 

Overall 






733 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


Table VI.1 does not convey the relative contributions made by different levels of government. 
Table VI.2 compares the investment made by each level of government as a percentage of all gov¬ 
ernment dollars received. This estimate was done only for museums that reported receiving some 
public money. 

Breaking out support by level of government highlights pronounced differences in the amount 
of financial support that was received. Some of these distributions are consistent with the results of 
Table VI.1, which identified the likelihood of receipt, while others are not. For example, science and 
technology museums, which reported a greater likelihood of receipt of federal support than other 
government support, reported that half of their public money comes from federal sources. Histori¬ 
cal societies, on the other hand, were more likely to report receipt of local government dollars than 
any other source. But, in the aggregate, federal sources of support amount to almost half of histori¬ 
cal societies’ government source dollars. 44 Local government dollars make up more than 50% of 
the public money reported by art museums, children’s museums, arboretums and botanical gar¬ 
dens, and zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies in the sample. Across all museum types except 
for science and technology museums and historical societies, state and local dollars account for 
more than 80% of the government support reported. 


44 Although both science and technology museums and historical societies reported high rates of federal support 
compared to other government support, readers should note that underlying dollar amounts (reported in Table IV.6) are 
very different. For science and technology museums, the median government support amount was $289,970 for FY 
2006. For historical societies, the median government support amount was $7,751. 


45 






































■ 


■■ 




PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES AND THE FLOW OF PUBLIC DOLLARS 
TO MUSEUMS IN THE U.S. 


Table VI. 2. Percentage of Government Revenue by Type and Source , FY 2006 


Museum Type 

Source of Support 

N 

Federal 

State 

Local 

Tribal 

Art Museums 

16.4% 

30.1% 

52.5% 

1.0% 

115 

Children’s Museums 

17.8% 

24.4% 

57.8% 

0.0% 

31 

History Museums 

18.4% 

43.0% 

38.5% 

0.0% 

191 

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 

18.2% 

42.4% 

39.4% 

0.1% 

33 

Science and Technology Museums 

52.0% 

21.8% 

26.1% 

0.0% 

35 

Historical Societies 

45.7% 

26.8% 

27.4% 

0.0% 

85 

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 

18.7% 

12.5% 

68.9% 

0.0% 

19 

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 

8.5% 

15.0% 

76.4% 

0.1% 

37 

Hybrid and Other 

6.8% 

67.8% 

23.8% 

1.5% 

36 

Total 





582 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


Perceptions, Competition, and Uses of Public Support 

To better understand the reach of public dollars to museums, the MPFS asked respondents about 
their perceptions, attempts to secure, and uses of federal, state, and local support. 

Federal Support 

Among the MPFS respondents, 71% reported that they had applied for federal grants, 19% said 
they had not applied for federal grants, and 9% said that they did not know if their institution had 
ever applied for federal grants through a competitive process. Among the respondents that applied 
for federal grants, 85% reported having been successful in securing this type of support in the 
past three years. 

The study also explored whether museums had sought congressional earmarks. Figure VI.2 
shows the responses. Among institutions that did seek earmark support, 49% sought earmarks 
for capital construction or renovation, 21% for educational programs, 13% for outreach, 11% for 
conservation of collections, and 6% for other purposes. 

Figure VI. 2. Museums Seeking Federal Earmarks 


Yes 

No 

Don’t Know 



Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 




































The MPFS found significant differences in the types of museums that reported applying for 
federal earmarks. Table VI.3 lists the different types of institutions seeking federal earmark sup¬ 
port. Science and technology centers are much more likely than any other type of institution to 
seek such support. 


Table VI. 3. Museums Seeking Federal Earmarks by Type 


Museum Type 

Yes 

No 

Don’t Know 

Total 

Art Museums 

12.3% 

60.0% 

27.7% 

130 

Children’s Museums 

23.7% 

55.3% 

21.1% 

38 

History Museums 

19.0% 

63.3% 

17.7% 

237 

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 

20.5% 

61.4% 

18.2% 

44 

Science and Technology Museums 

53.7% 

34.1% 

12.2% 

41 

Historical Societies 

10.9% 

65.9% 

23.3% 

129 

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 

25.0% 

64.3% 

10.7% 

28 

Zoos Aquariums and Zoological Societies 

26.8% 

58.5% 

14.6% 

41 

Hybrid and Other 

19.2% 

67.3% 

13.5% 

52 

Total 




740 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


State and Local Support 

The MPFS asked respondents a series of questions about the perception of the availability of state 
and local dollars for museums. Figure VI.3 lists results from two separate questions. The survey 
asked respondents whether their local government provided direct financial support to museums 
through a competitive grant process. It also asked whether their state governments provided direct 
financial support to museums via a competitive grant process. It is important to note that respon¬ 
dents were not asked if their museum had received direct financial support from state or local 
government, but whether such support was available. 

There was little variance in the responses by museum type; however, we did find significant 
differences in the responses by region. Figure VI.3 displays the responses to both questions by 
the six museum association regions. 45 The red bars represent the percentage of respondents who 
answered “Yes” to the question about the availability of state competitive support to museums. The 
blue bars represent the percentage of respondents who answered “Yes” to the question about the 
availability of local competitive support to museums. Across all six regions, respondents were much 
more likely to report the availability of direct financial support to museums from state government 
than from local government. 


45 Museum regions are those designated by the American Association of Museums. See appendix B for the lists of 
states comprising each region. 


47 























PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES AND THE FLOW OF PUBLIC DOLLARS 
TO MUSEUMS IN THE U.S. 


Figure VI.3. Competitive Grants Available at State and Local Levels 


Western Museums Association 
Association of Midwest Museums 
Mountain-Plains Museum Association 
Southeastern Museums Conference 
Mid-Atlantic Association of Museums 
New England Museum Association 



State 

Local 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 

In some regions, the availability of state support by means of competitive grants was twice that 
reported for local government. The New England Museum Association service area stands out as 
the region with the greatest reported difference in the availability of competitive grants, with 75% 
of the region’s respondents reporting that state-level monies were available and only 20% reporting 
that local competitive grant monies were available. 

On the question of availability, the survey also asked respondents to report whether or not their 
institution had applied for these grants. Among respondents reporting the availability of local-level 
competitive grant money, 83% in all regions reported applying for this support in the last three 
years. Among respondents who reported the availability of state-level competitive grant money, 

78% reported applying for this support in the last three years. 

The MPFS also asked respondents to identify whether earmarks from the state legislature were 
available to museums in their states. These responses were aggregated at the regional level, and 
the results are shown in Table VI.4. Only in one region, the Southeastern Museum Conference, 
did the majority of respondents say that state-level earmarks were an option open to museums in 
their states. Across the other five regions, the most common response to this question was “Don’t 
Know.” 


48 








Table VIA. Are State Earmarks an Option for Museums in Your State? 


Museum Region 

Yes 

No 

Don’t Know 

Total 

New England Museum Association 

41.1% 

16.4% 

42.5% 

73 

Mid-Atlantic Association of Museums 

38.1% 

15.9% 

46.0% 

113 

Southeastern Museum Conference 

55.1% 

19.7% 

29.5% 

132 

Mountain-Plains Museums Association 

16.5% 

33.0% 

50.4% 

115 

Association of Midwest Museums 

28.8% 

25.6% 

45.6% 

160 

Western Museums Association 

23.3% 

23.3% 

53.3% 

150 

All Regions 

32.3% 

22.9% 

44.8% 

743 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


Availability of In-Kind and Dedicated Tax Support 

Apart from competitive grants, all respondents were asked whether they received in-kind support 
from state or local governments. In-kind support is the donation of equipment, services, supplies, or 
other property distinct from monetary donations. Across all respondents, only 8% reported receipt 
of in-kind support from state government. However, 30% of the respondents reported receipt of in- 
kind support from local government. Respondents were asked to provide monetary estimates of the 
in-kind support, but most reported that the value of the support had not been assessed. 

Respondents were also asked whether tourism, property, and sales taxes (including general 
sales, retail, and amusement taxes) were dedicated to support museums. Among the three taxing 
options, property taxes (40%) and tourism taxes (39%) were the most likely to be used for museum 
support. Sales taxes were mentioned by 18% of respondents. However, for each question, a sig¬ 
nificant number of respondents were not sure whether local tax dollars were used to support area 
museums (Figure VI.4). 


Figure VIA. Taxes Used for Museum Support 



Tourism Taxes (N=256) Property Tax (N=255) General Sales, Retail, and 

Amusement Tax (N=257) 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


49 


















































PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES AND THE FLOW OF PUBLIC DOLLARS 
TO MUSEUMS IN THE U.S. 


Uses for State and Local Support 

The MPFS asked respondents to select the most important use from a list of purposes for state 
and local funds for museums. For the overwhelming majority of respondents, the most important 
purpose for funds from both sources was general operating support. Program support was listed as 
the second most important purpose, followed by support for capital improvements and renovations. 
Table VI.5 indicates the ranking of importance for each type of support and the number of respon¬ 
dents who selected them as most important. 


Table VI. 5. Most Important Purpose for State and Local Source Funds for Museums 


Most Important Purpose for Funds for Museums 

State Funds 
(Frequency) 

Local Funds 
(Frequency) 

General operating support 

283 

182 

Program support (collections care, exhibits, research, educational programming) 

117 

36 

Funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction 

83 

29 

Unrestricted funds 

4 

4 

Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, 
maintenance, other) 

1 

0 

Salary 

1 

0 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


Section Summary 

This section highlights the important yet understudied fact that public finance of U.S. museums 
comes through a wide variety of mechanisms, through varying levels of government, and in very 
different amounts. The majority of institutional respondents reported receipt of public funds in 
some form or other. Across the museum types, science and technology museums were the most 
likely to report receipt of government support, followed by zoos, aquariums, and zoological societ¬ 
ies. Historical societies and hybrid institutions were among the least likely types to report govern¬ 
ment support. Respondents reported the availability of a wide variety of public finance mechanisms 
at different levels of government. Given this diverse funding base, an important consideration for 
a new federal-state partnership is how federal dollars might complement or leverage state dollars, 
as well as their relationship to the broader funding base of museums, which includes local public 
funding and private and earned income support. 

Survey respondents reported the availability of state and local competitive grants in all regions 
of the country, although responses suggest that state competitive grants are almost twice as likely 
to be available as local competitive grants. There was a wide range in the availability of state 
budget earmarks, from 16% of the respondents reporting their availability in the Mountain-Plains 
states to more than 55% in the Southern Museum Conference. Two out of five survey respondents 
reported local government availability of tourism and property taxes, and one in five reported the 
availability of general sales, retail, and amusement taxes for museums. 


50 





















This section showed that different types of museums reported receipt of support from differ¬ 
ent levels of government; the dollar amounts received by institutional respondents highlight the 
fact that some government sources account for a much greater share of their public dollars than 
others. Federal sources provide greater proportional shares of government support to science and 
technology museums and to historical societies than state or local sources. In turn, local sources 
provide greater proportional shares of government support to art museums, children’s museums, 
arboretums/botanical gardens, and zoos. State governments do not appear to provide greater 
proportional shares of support to specific museum types to the degree that federal and local 
sources do. 

Examining the proportional distribution of government dollars is a useful way of looking at 
the relative contribution of federal, state, and local support by museum type, but here again it 
is important to ask what these contributions represent in dollar terms. For most museum types 
that have resource-intensive collections and operations, such as science and technology muse¬ 
ums and zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies, one level of government tended to dominate 
the public investment. For example, in the case of science and technology museums, federal 
dollars accounted for more than half of the government money received. For zoos, aquariums, 
and zoological societies, local government dollars accounted for close to 70% of the government 
money received. In short, different levels of government tend to concentrate museum funding by 
museum type. 






Public Funding 
for Museums at the 
: Federal Level 


Pictured: A volunteer leads a group of students on a tour of the 
Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, California. 
Photo by Don Farber. 




This section reviews administrative data from four federal agen¬ 
cies and data drawn from passed and signed congressional 
appropriation bills to describe the distribution of federal competi¬ 
tive grants and earmarks to museums across the United States. 
The funding sources listed below do not account for all of the 
direct federal contributions to museums. However, they do repre¬ 
sent the largest sources of direct federal support to museums. 

Federal Grant Opportunity Programs 

IMLS, NEA, NEH, and NSF are the four grant-making agencies 
that provide most of the federal competitive awards to muse¬ 
ums in the United States. Each agency has a distinctive role in 
providing support to museums that is defined by the mission of 
the agency. As their titles indicate, NSF, NEH, and NEA strive to 
support programmatic efforts to improve understanding of sci¬ 
ences, humanities, and arts, respectively. As a result, competitive 
grants from these agencies tend to support a narrower segment 
of the museum sector. An examination of FY 2006 giving for 
the three agencies illustrates this point. Of the 34 NSF museum 
grantees in FY 2006, 65% were either natural history/natural sci¬ 
ence museums or science and technology centers. Similarly, 64% 


52 








— 


PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL 


of NEA’s 149 museum grantees in FY 2006 were art museums, and 49% of NEH’s 164 museum 
grantees in FY 2006 were history museums or historical societies. 46 IMLS, which does not have a 
disciplinary focus, provides competitive grant support to many different museum types. 

Apart from differences in disciplinary focus, there are significant differences in the number 
of awards made annually, the amount of money distributed, and the distribution of awards across 
the United States. 47 Between FY 2000 and FY 2006, these four federal agencies awarded 5,619 
direct grants to museums, amounting to more than $628 million. 48 More than three-quarters of this 
amount came from IMLS and NSF, which provided 32% and 46%, respectively, of the total federal 
dollars distributed over the study period. NEA accounted for 5% and NEH accounted for 17% of 
the direct competitive museum grants distributed by the four agencies during the study period (see 
Table VII.2). 

Distribution of Federal Competitive Grant Funds According to Regions 

A review of federal grants from FY 2000 to FY 2006 highlights major differences in the distribu¬ 
tion of these dollars across the agencies and the states. This is illustrated for one year in Table 
VII.1. Among the four granting agencies, NSF provided the largest amount of support to museums 
for FY 2006—more than $34 million. NSF is followed by IMLS with more than $31.5 million, NEH 
with $12.3 million, and NEA with $5.4 million. 

Most of the competitive federal money distributed to museums in FY 2006 (78%) came 
from NSF and IMLS. Listed alongside each agency’s distribution is the percentage distributed to 
each museum region. As Table VII.1 shows, the distributions vary widely; however, a few patterns 
emerge. The Mid-Atlantic region garnered more support than any other region. Two regions (Mid- 
Atlantic and Western Museum Association regions) received more than 50% of the NSF support. 
The New England Museum Association and the Association of Midwest Museums regions had 50% 
of the NEH support in FY 2006. 


46 Because the administrative data files for the three agencies did not include a classification for the type of museum, 
each record had to be postcoded by hand based on the name of the institution. This type of coding did not result in a 
100% match. For NSF, 17% of the museums could not be classified by name alone. For NEA, 23% of the museums 
could not be identified by name, and for NEH, the figure was 34%. These percentages also include museums that 
could be classified as tribal museums, hybrid museums, or specialized museums based on MPFS categorization. 

47 Appendix C presents tables for each agency that provide a year-by-year breakdown of funding to states between FY 
2000 and FY 2006 and the distribution of funds per 1,000 residents. 

48 In several tables that represent dollar amounts of awards over multiple years, the award amounts are adjusted for 
inflation and set to 2006 dollars for comparative purposes. Notes at the bottom of the tables indicate when this occurs. 


53 






PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL 


Table VII.1. Federal Grant Funding to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA, and NEFI 
by Museum Association Region , FY 2006 


Distribution of Grants/Earmarks to Museums by Identified Source 



IMLS 

NSF 

NEA 

NEH 

Earmarks 

Total All Federal 
Sources 

2006 $ 

% 

2006 $ 

% 

2006 $ 

% 

2006 $ 

% 

2006 $ 

% 

2006 $ 

- 

% 

New England 

Museum 

Association 

4,000,796 

13 

5,739,344 

17 

811,500 

15 

3,751,923 

30 

6,850,000 

10 

21,153,563 

14 

Mid-Atlantic 
Association of 
Museums 

9,105,491 

29 

8,893,737 

26 

1,804,700 

33 

2,216,529 

18 

6,635,000 

10 

28,655,457 

19 

Southeastern 

Museum 

Conference 

4,334,272 

14 

2,076,488 

6 

713,000 

13 

2,128,745 

17 

16,945,000 

26 

26,197,505 

18 

Mountain-Plains 

Museums 

Association 

— 

3,103,635 

10 

2,977,097 

9 

427,000 

8 

1,143,556 

9 

7,660,000 

12 

15,311,288 

10 

Association 
of Midwest 
Museums 

6,650,012 

21 

4,109,781 

12 

893,250 

16 

2,521,493 

20 

15,950,000 

24 

30,124,536 

20 

Western 

Museums 

Association 

4,311,214 

14 

10,351,507 

30 

825,000 

15 

573,577 

5 

11,600,000 

18 

27,661,298 

19 

Total United 
States 

31,505,420 

100 

34,147,954 

100 

5,474,450 

100 

12,335,823 

100 

65,640,000 

100 

149,103,647 

100 


Source: Federal support from agencies is based on Urban Institute analysis of administrative data obtained from IMLS, 
NSF, NEA, NEH, 2008. Earmark/allocation reports are based on Urban Institute analysis of data obtained from the 
Citizens Against Government Waste, 2008. 


Note: All amounts are expressed in 2006 dollars. 

Distribution of Federal Competitive Grant Funds by State 

Table VII.2 depicts the four agencies’ funding from FY 2000 to FY 2006. IMLS and NEFI were 
the only agencies that provided grants to museums in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 
During that period, museums in 3 states did not receive NEA support and museums in 22 states 
did not receive NSF support. 49 An examination of the cumulative support amounts across all four 
agencies reveals that support tends to be concentrated among states with the largest populations 
and largest museum sectors. Five states (California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Penn¬ 
sylvania) received more than 50% of all the competitive grant dollars awarded by the four agencies 
over these seven years. Based on state-level estimates for museums provided earlier in this report, 
these five states account for 28% of the identified museums in the United States. 


49 The tables reporting state-level distribution of NEA grants report direct grants from the agency to museums. NEA 
gives grant to all 50 states through its grants to State Arts Agencies. 


54 
















































New York, California, Massachusetts, and Illinois received the most money from IMLS over the 
seven years, with cumulative grant totals ranging from $13.2 million in Illinois to $25.4 million in 
New York. The states that received the least financial support from IMLS over these years were 
North Dakota and Idaho, which received $230,570 and $305,485, respectively. 

The full range of total grant funding to museums from NEH over the same period runs from 
cumulative seven-year grant totals of $18,339 in South Carolina to $15,592,743 in New York. 
From 2000 to 2006, NSF distributed competitive grants to museums in 28 states, ranging from 
a cumulative total of $33,538 in Maine to $82,561,632 in California. Over the same period, NEA 
distributed competitive grants to museums in all states except Arkansas, Kansas, and Oregon, 
with cumulative seven-year totals ranging from $11,383 in South Dakota and West Virginia to 
$7,109,939 in New York. 


Table VI 1.2. Federal Grant Funding to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA, and NEFI 
by State, FY 2000-2006 



IMLS 

NSF 

NEA 

NEH 

Total Across 
Four Agencies 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Alabama 

1,142,473 

141,869 

521,594 

352,214 

2,158,150 

Alaska 

1,624,800 

1,919,189 

46,435 

1,829,923 

5,420,346 

Arizona 

3,715,776 

0 

216,921 

1,424,750 

5,357,446 

Arkansas 

621,455 

0 

0 

71,684 

693,139 

California 

15,679,429 

82,561,632 

4,209,933 

10,166,693 

112,617,687 

Colorado 

4,950,773 

2,453,389 

330,467 

942,203 

8,676,832 

Connecticut 

5,339,894 

1,949,192 

592,348 

3,219,892 

11,101,326 

Delaware 

820,271 

544,310 

216,652 

906,558 

2,487,790 

District of Columbia 

5,296,898 

0 

1,115,284 

3,031,612 

9,443,794 

Florida 

6,450,864 

7,842,543 

302,145 

2,598,796 

17,194,347 

Georgia 

1,757,673 

0 

1,314,114 

1,363,480 

4,435,268 

Hawaii 

659,431 

1,922,293 

93,380 

351,332 

3,026,436 

Idaho 

305,485 

0 

60,306 

32,552 

398,344 

Illinois 

13,299,258 

16,348,063 

2,306,368 

3,974,727 

35,928,416 

Indiana 

2,055,619 

1,343,081 

82,298 

959,830 

4,440,827 

Iowa 

2,080,381 

0 

306,561 

1,005,405 

3,392,347 

Kansas 

1,897,198 

0 

0 

62,428 

1,959,626 

Kentucky 

2,370,180 

2,126,934 

183,085 

153,849 

4,834,049 

Louisiana 

2,501,804 

0 

168,018 

592,575 

3,262,396 

Maine 

4,265,581 

33,538 

166,889 

2,585,170 

7,051,178 

Maryland 

3,257,595 

3,387,163 

437,424 

2,924,086 

10,006,268 

Massachusetts 

15,411,838 

26,505,013 

2,175,235 

7,222,587 

51,314,673 

Michigan 

6,205,450 

0 

936,560 

3,418,255 

10,560,265 

Minnesota 

4,331,881 

17,642,016 

178,838 

2,697,849 

24,850,584 


55 





























































PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL 


Table VI 1.2. Federal Grant Funding to Museums from I MLS, NSF, NEA, and NEFI 
by State, FY 2000-2006 (continued) 


■ 

IMLS 

NSF 

NEA 

NEH 

Total Across 
Four Agencies 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Mississippi 

504,182 

0 

156,089 

1,206,809 

1,867,080 

Missouri 

3,993,170 

2,889,818 

712,796 

4,175,213 

11,770,997 

Montana 

1,762,548 

0 

201,383 

297,697 

2,261,628 

Nebraska 

1,876,733 

0 

20,995 

608,212 

2,505,939 

Nevada 

735,595 

0 

53,085 

61,075 

849,755 

New Hampshire 

1,553,243 

824,780 

49,171 1 

1,112,923 

3,540,117 

New Jersey 

1,355,000 

2,162,953 

460,576 

749,525 

4,728,053 

New Mexico 

3,178,852 

742,108 

528,706 

2,819,292 

7,268,959 

New York 

25,431,901 

47,476,779 

7,109,939 

15,592,743 

95,611,362 

North Carolina 

4,890,456 

2,725,137 

700,882 

1,592,222 

9,908,698 

North Dakota 

230,570 

0 

203,450 

53,740 

487,761 

Ohio 

5,461,685 

2,738,807 

884,629 

2,614,034 

11,699,156 

Oklahoma 

1,904,863 

0 

303,737 

554,648 

2,763,247 

Oregon 

2,029,196 

6,666,751 

0 

96,396 

8,792,342 

Pennsylvania 

10,474,319 

17,327,026 

2,083,777 

5,317,059 

35,202,181 

Rhode Island 

718,433 

0 

26,264 

630,605 

1,375,302 

South Carolina 

1,401,435 

0 

39,973 

18,339 

1,459,748 

South Dakota 

808,234 

0 

11,383 

71,938 

891,555 

Tennessee 

3,989,249 

0 

532,604 

356,024 

4,877,878 

Texas 

6,543,668 

8,741,114 

1,555,500 

2,477,307 

19,317,589 

Utah 

2,324,967 

0 

26,296 

35,025 

2,386,287 

Vermont 

2,010,912 

4,523,074 

22,056 

1,153,724 

7,709,765 

Virginia 

4,903,352 

24,378,909 

202,366 

5,286,085 

34,770,712 

Washington 

4,813,912 

417,305 

852,671 

1,308,515 

7,392,403 

West Virginia 

695,677 

0 

11,383 

25,962 

733,022 

Wisconsin 

4,404,882 

965,592 

195,633 

1,247,538 

6,813,645 

Wyoming 

1,072,514 

0 

89,864 

104,620 

1,266,997 

U.S. Total 

205,111,551 

289,300,379 

32,996,063 

101,455,723 

628,863,716 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by IMLS, NSF, NEA, NEH and Citizens Against Government 
Waste, 2008. 

Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars. 


56 













































Federal Earmarks 

Congressional earmarks are another important source of federal funds for museums. 50 Table VII.3 
provides summaries by state of identified earmarks for more than 1,212 museums between FY 
2001 and FY 2006. 51 Note that the earmarks identified in Table VII.3 and Figures VII.1 and VII.2 
cover funds allocated to all types of museums, including government-managed and nonprofit muse¬ 
ums, federal and military museums, and university-based museums and centers. 


Table VI 1.3. Earmarks to Museums by State , FY 2001-2006 



Tota 

Earmarks ($ 2006) 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 

2001-06 

Alabama 

597,628 

4,902,724 

3,944,348 

1,120,593 

2,076,903 

3,600,000 

16,242,196 

Alaska 

1,707,510 

4,762,646 

2,191,304 

2,241,186 

5,082,839 

0 

15,985,485 

Arizona 

227,668 

56,031 

0 

1,040,551 

849,290 

0 

2,173,540 

Arkansas 

0 

0 

0 

80,042 

358,194 

0 

438,236 

California 

7,884,142 

7,765,914 

6,347,113 

7,031,987 

5,065,548 

7,700,000 

41,794,705 

Colorado 

341,502 

840,467 

986,087 

4,268,925 

258,065 

250,000 

6,945,046 

Connecticut 

828,711 

1,193,463 

838,174 

202,774 

1,858,065 

4,700,000 

9,621,187 

Delaware 

0 

0 

197,217 

0 

0 

0 

197,217 

District of 
Columbia 

6,830,040 

4,773,852 

6,847,826 

4,546,406 

7,458,065 

1,470,000 

31,926,188 

Florida 

1,074,593 

1,149,759 

1,265,478 

3,068,290 

5,398,710 

1,300,000 

13,256,830 

Georgia 

1,792,885 

1,277,510 

3,438,704 

346,850 

3,655,226 

675,000 

11,186,175 

Hawaii 

3,585,771 

3,193,774 

876,522 

853,785 

516,129 

0 

9,025,981 

Idaho 

0 

840,467 

0 

1,227,316 

258,065 

0 

2,325,847 

Illinois 

5,099,763 

1,456,809 

2,651,478 

3,601,906 

8,237,419 

2,880,000 

23,927,376 

Indiana 

0 

112,062 

0 

640,339 

103,226 

2,580,000 

3,435,627 


50 The earmarks data for this report were drawn from earmarks identified from signed and passed congressional 
appropriation bills collected by the nonprofit organization, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). To flag congres¬ 
sional earmarks consistently, CAGW established seven criteria. To be counted as an earmark, appropriations must sat¬ 
isfy at least one of the following criteria: (1) requested by only one chamber of Congress; (2) not specifically authorized; 
(3) not competitively awarded; (4) not requested by the president; (5) greatly exceed the president’s budget request or 
the previous year’s funding; (6) not the subject of congressional hearings; (7) serve only a local or special interest. By 
comparison, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects 
or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents executive branch merit-based or 
competitive allocation processes, specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive 
branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process. OMB did not start collecting data on earmarks until 
FY 2006, making the CAGW data the only consistent source of information for the period covered in this report. The 
Urban Institute compared the OMB and CAGW data for the one year in which the two sources overlapped (FY 2006) 
and found the dollar figures to be comparable within 2 percentage points, with the CAGW database providing the 
slightly lower estimate. 

51 Earmark data were not available for FY 2000. Therefore, the total amount of federal-level support for museums 
identified in this report is from earmarks from FY 2001-2006 and competitive grants from IMLS, NEA, NEH and NSF 
from FY 2000-2006. 


57 
































■■■■■■■■ 


PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL 


Table VI 1.3. Earmarks to Museums by State, FY 2001-2006 (continued) 



Tota 

Earmarks ($ 2006) 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 

2001-06 

Iowa 

2,276,680 

3,025,681 

4,683,913 

3,255,056 

3,210,323 

365,000 

16,816,652 

Kansas 

1,081,423 

0 

310,617 

186,765 

412,903 

0 

1,991,709 

Kentucky 

1,928,348 

1,372,763 

0 

1,227,316 

11,489,032 

0 

16,017,459 

Louisiana 

284,585 

560,311 

547,826 

0 

1,135,484 

500,000 

3,028,206 

Maine 

398,419 

2,801,556 

1,512,000 

0 

100,129 

400,000 

5,212,104 

Maryland 

701,217 

0 

5,752,174 

1,464,241 

877,419 

200,000 

8,995,052 

Massachusetts 

2,514,593 

1,372,763 

1,764,000 

1,067,231 

1,858,065 

250,000 

8,826,651 

Michigan 

1,377,391 

952,529 

221,870 

2,134,463 

1,465,548 

1,850,000 

8,001,801 

Minnesota 

581,692 

0 

1,698,261 

133,404 

428,387 

250,000 

3,091,744 

Mississippi 

1,400,158 

1,428,794 

273,913 

2,881,525 

3,716,129 

2,950,000 

12,650,519 

Missouri 

8,935,968 

560,311 

4,355,217 

982,920 

1,496,774 

6,950,000 

23,281,191 

Montana 

0 

392,218 

0 

1,334,039 

1,290,323 

450,000 

3,466,580 

Nebraska 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1,147,871 

5,240,000 

6,387,871 

Nevada 

0 

0 

383,478 

160,085 

206,452 

0 

750,015 

New Hampshire 

341,502 

0 

0 

26,681 

2,012,903 

1,500,000 

3,881,086 

New Jersey 

3,606,261 

0 

0 

0 

1,823,742 

340,000 

5,770,003 

New Mexico 

227,668 

0 

1,062,783 

346,850 

0 

200,000 

1,837,301 

New York 

6,740,111 

16,181,790 

8,268,065 

4,161,135 

7,059,871 

2,825,000 

45,235,972 

North Carolina 

942,545 

560,311 

769,696 

1,387,401 

837,419 

2,030,000 

6,527,372 

North Dakota 

227,668 

336,187 

273,913 

0 

0 

0 

837,768 

Ohio 

397,281 

3,397,728 

3,670,435 

3,308,417 

5,410,065 

1,075,000 

17,258,925 

Oklahoma 

0 

0 

1,725,652 

747,062 

2,683,871 

420,000 

5,576,585 

Oregon 

170,751 

1,512,840 

378,000 

1,173,954 

333,161 

400,000 

3,968,707 

Pennsylvania 

5,778,213 

3,440,311 

4,545,313 

4,028,798 

4,797,677 

1,800,000 

24,390,313 

Rhode Island 

1,309,091 

1,120,623 

443,739 

586,977 

51,613 

0 

3,512,043 

South Carolina 

2,561,265 

381,012 

0 

533,616 

258,065 

200,000 

3,933,957 

South Dakota 

0 

336,187 

2,958,261 

2,134,463 

1,703,226 

200,000 

7,332,136 

Tennessee 

1,878,261 

952,529 

368,687 

3,335,098 

2,519,742 

300,000 

9,354,317 

Texas 

2,112,759 

1,949,883 

1,695,522 

426,893 

619,355 

550,000 

7,354,411 

Utah 

1,707,510 

0 

0 

240,127 

77,419 

1,800,000 

3,825,056 

Vermont 

2,561,265 

3,434,708 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5,995,973 

Virginia 

2,922,119 

4,263,969 

5,216,400 

3,612,578 

3,664,516 

1,250,000 

20,929,582 

Washington 

2,447,431 

1,008,560 

843,104 

907,147 

3,169,032 

1,700,000 

10,075,274 

West Virginia 

1,821,344 

5,821,634 

0 

106,723 

4,129,032 

4,140,000 

16,018,734 

Wisconsin 

569,170 

1,232,685 

0 

373,531 

154,839 

0 

2,330,224 

Wyoming 

0 

0 

0 

0 

325,161 

350,000 

675,161 

U.S. Total 

91,195,826 

90,723,362 

83,307,091 

72,802,253 

112,415,484 

65,640,000 

516,084,016 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008. 
Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars. 


58 


























































































There is considerable unevenness in the amount of earmarked funding to museums in most 
states over the six-year period. For example, seven states and the District of Columbia received 
more than $1 million each in all six years. Some states (Delaware, Nebraska, and Wyoming) 
received earmarks in only one year. 

There is also significant variation in the amount of earmark money that is distributed to a given 
state over time. The presence of one or two major earmarks in a given year may result in a signifi¬ 
cantly larger amount of money compared to previous or later years. For example, Ohio received 
a total of $17.2 million over the six years, but the dollar amounts in individual years ranged from 
$397,281 to $5.4 million. 

Over the six years reviewed for this study, 1,214 earmarks were distributed to museums through 
12 federal appropriation subcommittees (see appendix G). The median size of award for the six 
years was $250,000, while the full range extended from $50,000 to $5 million. The number of 
earmarks to museums rose steadily from 2001 to 2005 (see Figure VII.1) and then fell to the 
lowest level of all six years in 2006. In 2005, the year with the highest number and dollar amount 
of federal earmarks to museums, the total number of museum earmarks was just over 2% of the 
total number of federal earmarks awarded, according to the data collected by CAGW. As a propor¬ 
tion of dollars distributed through earmarks, the $112 million in earmarks to museums in 2005 
represents 0.4% of all earmark monies distributed in that fiscal year. 

Figure VI 1.1. Number of Earmarks to Museums by Budget Year, FY 2001-2006 



FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008. 


59 



















PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL 


Although detailed descriptions are not available for many of the earmarks in the CAGW data, a 
review of the earmarks with project descriptions indicates that the largest share of museum ear¬ 
marks were for program support (46%), followed by capital construction (29%), and then operating 
support (4%) and research (4%). Many earmarks could not be identified (17%) from the informa¬ 
tion available (see Figure VII.2). 52 The types of earmarks specified in Figure VII.2 were the result of 
Urban Institute analysis of earmark data. 53 

Figure VI 1.2. Types of Federal Earmarks to Museums , FY 2005. Total = 296 earmarks 



ll,4 


13,4% 




Capital Construction 
Operating Support 
Program Support 
Research Support 
Undefined 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008. 


Table VII.4 details museum funding from IMLS, NSF, NEH, NEA, and federal earmarks, by 
state. The states most successful in receiving federal money, from both competitive grant programs 
and earmarks, are again California and New York. The next two most successful states lag far 
behind. The third most successful state (Massachusetts), as well as the fourth (Illinois), received 
less than half as many federal dollars as either California or New York. 54 


52 Earmarks for FY 2005 were coded for this analysis because this was the last year of available data that contained 
earmarks distributed through the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriation. A significant 
percentage (17%) of earmarks could not be categorized because of insufficient descriptive information and should be 
taken into account when comparing the distribution of earmark purposes. 

53 Capital construction includes earmarks for expansion, construction, renovation, restoration, and updates to and 
repairs of facilities. Earmarks for traffic and transportation infrastructure were also classified as capital construction. 
Program support includes earmarks for conservation and assessment projects, preservation, digitization, education, 
community outreach, and exhibition and earmarks designated to projects. Operations support includes earmarks for 
equipment, wages, training, technological infrastructure, and maintenance. Research support includes earmarks for 
research projects and studies. Undefined includes all earmarks for which only the name of the museum receiving the 
earmark is known and no other information is available. 

54 For further comparison, appendix C, Table AC.10 shows per capita funding from all federal sources by state for the 
years 2000-2006. 


60 













Table VI 1.4. Museum Funding fro m I MLS, NSF, NEH, NEA, and Earmarks: FY 2000-2006, by State 



Total ($ 2006) 

2000* 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

— 

2005 

2006 

Total 

2000-06* 

AL 

380,675 

796,496 

5,181,731 

4,336,219 

1,412,815 

2,202,999 

4,089,412 

18,400,347 

AK 

531,105 

1,811,913 

5,625,432 

3,204,397 

2,813,749 

6,321,702 

1,097,533 

21,405,831 

AZ 

725,830 

1,672,104 

515,498 

807,599 

1,332,516 

2,055,949 

421,490 

7,530,986 

AR 

136,553 

98,055 

154,357 

65,979 

223,531 

372,681 

80,219 

1,131,375 

CA 

12,395,872 

26,734,786 

20,090,563 

21,726,760 

24,641,779 

28,303,076 

20,519,556 

154,412,392 

CO 

633,028 

1,831,526 

1,868,126 

1,483,338 

6,285,168 

1,876,405 

1,644,288 

15,621,878 

CT 

780,321 

2,240,258 

2,131,378 

1,979,779 

4,164,091 

2,938,693 

6,487,993 

20,722,513 

DE 

149,074 

489,891 

250,564 

431,862 

804,391 

138,472 

420,752 

2,685,008 

DC 

783,790 

8,318,484 

5,579,715 

7,638,181 

5,110,479 

9,149,216 

4,790,117 

41,369,982 

FL 

2,020,099 

2,355,761 

2,768,556 

4,666,503 

6,396,178 

9,101,357 

3,142,722 

30,451,177 

GA 

428,020 

2,182,389 

1,645,499 

3,720,927 

1,386,774 

4,038,338 

2,219,497 

15,621,443 

HI 

279,026 

4,103,677 

3,622,321 

1,222,992 

1,748,600 

1,030,316 

45,485 

12,052,417 

ID 

31,962 

88,846 

885,941 

101,029 

1,273,052 

281,110 

62,251 

2,724,191 

IL 

5,360,722 

8,707,843 

6,160,431 

8,743,450 

8,330,124 

15,040,551 

7,512,671 

59,855,792 

IN 

1,605,516 

222,696 

344,567 

602,056 

1,406,782 

444,191 

3,250,647 

7,876,454 

IA 

753,223 

2,701,324 

3,489,513 

4,841,562 

3,936,803 

3,639,991 

846,583 

20,208,999 

KS 

176,426 

1,354,403 

577,043 

362,345 

727,383 

434,508 

319,226 

3,951,335 

KY 

330,958 

2,897,560 

2,108,660 

146,928 

3,177,370 

11,705,032 

485,000 

20,851,507 

LA 

229,727 

527,822 

951,812 

1,349,492 

926,976 

1,162,694 

1,142,080 

6,290,603 

ME 

277,297 

1,197,218 

4,269,741 

2,813,057 

1,563,123 

413,993 

1,728,853 

12,263,283 

MD 

2,815,372 

1,663,380 

1,169,499 

7,316,307 

3,651,224 

1,562,104 

823,435 

19,001,320 

MA 

4,990,345 

8,649,800 

6,493,839 

8,580,873 

9,955,298 

11,567,202 

9,903,968 

60,141,324 

Ml 

1,213,342 

2,556,073 

2,279,638 

2,188,794 

3,806,671 

3,064,309 

3,453,240 

18,562,066 

MN 

4,707,623 

3,874,776 

3,947,985 

3,759,168 

4,242,690 

4,956,830 

2,453,256 

27,942,328 

MS 

149,461 

1,930,875 

1,749,146 

284,064 

3,217,209 

3,747,278 

3,439,564 

14,517,599 

MO 

524,282 

10,316,092 

1,460,857 

7,525,324 

3,305,948 

3,286,564 

8,633,122 

35,052,188 

MT 

382,725 

361,447 

717,873 

165,880 

1,929,777 

1,341,924 

828,582 

5,728,208 

NE 

282,673 

462,517 

323,519 

624,571 

166,214 

1,575,945 

5,458,371 

8,893,810 

NV 

343,407 

22,342 

45,833 

553,025 

169,732 

455,429 

10,000 

1,599,769 

NH 

1,291,435 

777,935 

999,787 

223,589 

340,352 

2,210,041 

1,578,065 

7,421,203 

NJ 

107,828 

4,051,117 

374,334 

1,445,461 

1,052,638 

2,201,786 

1,264,892 

10,498,056 

NM 

536,615 

1,746,626 

1,859,690 

1,929,859 

1,040,083 

416,499 

1,576,888 

9,106,259 

NY 

8,894,556 

21,033,066 

29,383,981 

22,430,286 

17,586,960 

25,907,436 

15,611,050 

140,847,334 

NC 

1,428,788 

2,137,036 

2,027,760 

2,094,008 

3,659,251 

2,184,838 

2,904,389 

16,436,071 

ND 

49,572 

317,403 

444,211 

328,429 

101,738 

59,174 

25,000 

1,325,529 


61 





































































































































































PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL 


Table VI 1.4. Museum Funding from I MLS, NSF, NEH, NEA, and Earmarks: FY 2000-2006, by State 
(continued) 



Total 

($ 2006) 

2000* 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 

2000-06* 

OH 

2,204,060 

2,495,075 

5,885,577 

4,509,722 

5,203,724 

6,195,361 

2,464,561 

28,958,080 

OK 

269,837 

710,534 

515,611 

1,955,095 

1,096,737 

3,259,741 

532,278 

8,339,832 

OR 

244,544 

1,234,167 

4,285,264 

3,430,662 

2,455,284 

659,516 

451,613 

12,761,049 

PA 

4,316,215 

11,408,730 

7,852,203 

10,387,680 

8,768,932 

11,113,524 

5,745,211 

59,592,495 

Rl 

759,646 

1,322,034 

1,422,558 

480,399 

789,355 

79,494 

33,860 

4,887,345 

SC 

417,399 

2,705,851 

536,801 

116,977 

663,176 

485,703 

467,797 

5,393,704 

SD 

58,155 

155,446 

524,409 

2,965,158 

2,314,841 

1,781,698 

423,985 

8,223,692 

TN 

738,043 

2,428,255 

1,193,939 

916,179 

4,588,171 

3,753,472 

614,135 

14,232,195 

TX 

1,282,136 

5,150,860 

4,903,736 

4,887,087 

3,946,202 

2,668,916 

3,833,064 

26,672,001 

UT 

348,965 

1,727,966 

331,582 

196,756 

651,428 

433,519 

2,521,127 

6,211,344 

VT 

1,707,155 

3,213,288 

4,461,639 

317,053 

869,980 

1,715,799 

1,420,824 

13,705,738 

VA 

5,189,514 

11,545,442 

11,079,601 

9,704,070 

7,509,438 

7,433,068 

3,239,161 

55,700,294 

WA 

941,821 

3,989,116 

1,740,803 

1,973,927 

2,147,319 

4,142,449 

2,532,243 

17,467,677 

WV 

40,402 

1,838,129 

5,860,894 

92,327 

141,627 

4,404,847 

4,373,529 

16,751,756 

Wl 

717,204 

2,228,933 

2,266,550 

731,706 

1,107,779 

581,241 

1,510,456 

9,143,869 

WY 

155,067 

59,967 

52,232 

253,057 

335,161 

417,068 

669,606 

1,942,158 

U.S. 

Total 

75,117,410 

182,447,327 

174,412,798 

172,611,949 

174,476,622 

214,314,052 

149,103,647 

1,142,483,806 


Sources: National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, 
Institute of Museum and Library Services, and Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 
2008. 

* No data on federal earmarks to museums were available for 2000. Data for 2000 reflect only NSF, NEA, NEH, and 
IMLS grants. 


Figure VII.3 compares the total distribution of funds to museums over time across IMLS, 

NSF, NEH, NEA, and earmarks. The chart highlights the considerable gap between the amounts 
distributed in competitive grants and the amounts distributed by means of earmarks. For several 
years, dollars distributed through the earmark process approach the amounts allocated from the 
four granting agencies combined. The total distribution of dollars from the five federal sources over 
these years amounts to more than $1.2 billion. 55 Museum support from the four granting agencies 
remained fairly consistent over time, until 2005. NSF support was steady at around $40 million 


55 The drop in FY 2006 dollars is due to the absence of earmarks accompanying the FY 2006 Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. 


62 


























































over the seven years. IMLS support increased slightly, settling at $31.5 million in 2006. NEH 
support for museums hovered just above $10 million, and NEA funds were among the most stable, 
albeit the lowest of the agencies, remaining around $5 million. 

Figure VI 1.4. Federal Grants and Earmarks to Museums, FY 2000-2006, in Constant 2006 $ 
$ 120 , 100,000 

$ 100 , 100,000 
$80,100,000 
$60,100,000 
$40,100,000 
$ 20 , 100,000 
$ 100,000 

NEA ■ NEH A I MLS 1 M NSF )K Earmarks/Appropriations 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by IMLS, NSF, NEA, NEH and Citizens Against Government 
Waste, 2008. 

Section Summary 

Given the extremely wide range of substantive expertise in the sector, it is not surprising that 
U.S. museums partner with many different federal agencies. While it is important for museums 
to have a variety of access points into the federal government, the diffuse nature of the support 
presents significant challenges to a full accounting of the federal government’s contribution to U.S. 
museums. The federal-source dollars reported here are not exhaustive; however, it is reasonable to 
assume that the sources identified for this report represent the largest group of direct federal sup¬ 
port to U.S. museums. 

Although the data presented here may not cover all direct federal dollars distributed to muse¬ 
ums, important conclusions can be drawn from these data. First, direct federal support to muse¬ 
ums appears to be larger than previously reported. 56 Across the five federal sources examined for 
this study, direct support to museums between FY 2001 and FY 2006 averaged just under $200 




56 The American Association of Museums estimated federal support for museums in FY 2006 at approximately $135 
million (excluding State Arts Agency grants to museums). Its report does not include earmark data. See American 
Association of Museums, March 2007, "Federal Support for Museums FY 2004-FY 2008.” Available at www.aam- 
us.org/getinvolved/advocate/ffc/upload/Chart_Federal_Support_for_Museums_FY_2004_FY_2008.pdf. 


63 



























PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL 


million a year. In FY 2006, direct competitive grant funds to museums from the four agencies 
amounted to more than $83 million. In the same year, $65 million was distributed to museums in 
the form of congressional earmarks. Second, because a major portion of this direct federal sup¬ 
port is provided for advances in certain disciplines, the pool of federal money may be significantly 
smaller for some types of institutions than others. Third, the distribution of competitive grants and 
earmarks across the states suggests that federal dollars may be concentrated among certain states 
Across the competitive grant programs reviewed for this report, five states received slightly more 
than 50% of all funds awarded. 


64 











Federal-State 
Partnerships in 
the Cultural Sector: 

IMLS, NEA and NEH and the Role 
of State-Level Intermediaries 


Pictured: The Rotunda entrance of the Birmingham Civil Rights 

Institute in Birmingham, Alabama. 


£f 'V ' ' . -V 


To investigate the potential effectiveness of a program that would 
provide museum services by means of grants to states, IMLS 
examined the current federal-state partnerships in the NEA, 

NEH, and IMLS grants to states programs. This section provides 
a broad overview of federal-state partnership funding mecha¬ 
nisms that deliver support to cultural organizations and programs 
within the states. 

NEA and NEH have channeled funds to state organizations 
from very early in their operational history. Indeed, the National 
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, which 
created the two endowments, emphasizes the importance of 
support from nonfederal sources with federal support in a 
complementary position. For example, in the “Declaration of 
Findings and Purposes” of the Act (20 U.S.C. §951), Congress 
finds and declares that “[t]he encouragement and support of 
national progress and scholarship in the humanities and the 
arts, while primarily a matter for private and local initiative, are 
also appropriate matters of concern to the Federal Government.” 
Another finding and purpose declares that “[i]t is necessary and 
appropriate for the Federal Government to complement, assist, 


65 























FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CULTURAL SECTOR 


and add to programs for the advancement of the humanities and the arts by local, state, regional, 
and private agencies and their organizations.” 

The Museum and Library Services Act (MLSA) of 1996 established the Institute of Museum 
and Library Services within the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. The Library 
Services and Technology Act (LSTA), a subtitle of MLSA, directed IMLS to support library services 
and technology through state-based programs under LSTA to sharpen the focus on these goals: to 
adapt new technologies to identify, preserve, and share library and information resources across 
institutional, local, and State boundaries; to ensure that all Americans have access to the informa¬ 
tion superhighway; and to extend outreach to those for whom library service requires extra effort 
or special materials (such as new readers, the geographically isolated, children in poverty, or 
people with disabilities). 

State Arts Agencies 

NEA supports a cohort of State Arts Agencies (SAAs), which, in turn, support arts programs and 
organizations within the states. By law, NEA allocates 40% of its annual grants budget to the 
SAAs and regional arts organizations. These SAAs are entities of state government, and their 
administrative staffs are state employees. Of the 56 SAAs (50 states and six U.S. jurisdictions), 

55 are situated in the executive branch. 57 To receive funding from NEA, the SAA becomes party 
to a State Partnership Agreement that specifies the use of the funds. NEA identifies seven stan¬ 
dards of accountability for which SAAs are responsible as funding recipients: inclusive planning, 
responsive plans, evaluation of performance in relation to plans, fair decision-making, reporting 
on funded activities and leadership in arts education, access to artistic excellence, and partner¬ 
ships for the arts. 58 A State Partnership Agreement award must be matched 1:1 by the state. NEA 
awards a $200,000 base grant to each SAA, and additional funds are awarded based on formula 
and equal-share apportionment. In FY 2006, the total allocation to the state partnership program 
was $40.6 million. 

To better understand the federal-state partnerships supported by NEA, IMLS asked the 
National Assembly of State Arts Agencies to provide data regarding museum-funding mechanisms 
that 15 SAAs use (Table VIII.1). 59 SAAs distribute funds for the purpose of enhancing access to 


The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies reports that 6 SAAs are within the governor’s or secretary of state’s 
office; 23 are independent state agencies, reporting to the governor; 26 are within a larger division of state govern¬ 
ment; and one, Vermont’s, is a nonprofit organization that complies with state government regulations. 

58 Accountability standards as outlined in NEA description of State Partnership Grants, www.nea.gov/grants/apply/ 
Partnership/states.html. 

IMLS staff selected the 15 states to comprise the sample. The first requirement was geographic distribution to 
account for regional differences. Next, based on staff experience with grantees and potential grantees, states were 
included because IMLS had awarded either a large number or a small number of grants to the state. Thus, the states 
in the sample represent a range of success in receiving IMLS awards. IMLS is grateful for the professional courtesy 
of the staffs of NEH and the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies in assembling the data regarding the State 
Humanities Councils and State Arts Agencies support for museums. 


66 









the arts, without regard to museum type. SAAs conduct peer review evaluations and provide funds 
to museums for a variety of activities, including general operating support. 

Each state’s SAA determines its individual priorities and allocates funds accordingly. For 
example, in 2006, the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts made 26 museum awards for a total of 
$1,512,191, of which awards for general operating support comprised 45%. Exhibit awards made 
up 36%, and the balance was for other activities, such as audience services and performances. 


Table VI11.1. State Arts Agency Grants to Museums In 15 Selected States , FY 2006 


SAA 

Dollars to 
Museums 

Median 

Museum 

Grant 

General 

Operating 

Support 

Awards 

GOS as 
% of 
Museum 
Grant $ 

Exhibition 

Awards 

Exhibits 
as % of 
Museum 
Grant $ 

All Other 
Museum 
Grants 

All 

Other 

% 

No. of 
Museum 
Grants 

AZ 

$434,366 

$5,000 

$359,168 

83% 

$3,500 

1% 

$71,698 

17% 

29 

HI 

$61,217 

$7,129 

$0 

0% 

$19,121 

31% 

$42,096 

69% 

6 

ME 

$15,000 

$15,000 

$0 

0% 

$0 

0% 

$15,000 

100% 

1 

Ml 

$3,881,650 

$33,550 

$0 

0% 

$1,732,100 

45% 

$2,149,550 

55% 

23 

MS 

$363,125 

$6,612 

$31,500 

9% 

$65,200 

18% 

$266,425 

73% 

15 

MO 

$156,974 

$4,072 

$0 

0% 

$149,952 

96% 

$7,022 

4% 

10 

NE 

$124,811 

$2,664 

$96,907 

78% 

$12,718 

10% 

$15,186 

12% 

15 

ND 

$59,519 

$3,000 

$13,350 

22% 

$44,777 

75% 

$1,392 

2% 

10 

OH 

$1,364,176 

$16,653 

$1,296,232 

95% 

$17,279 

1% 

$50,665 

4% 

23 

PA 

$1,512,191 

$37,691 

$681,707 

45% 

$543,450 

36% 

$287,034 

19% 

26 

SC 

$86,005 

$7,037 

$78,815 

92% 

$1,000 

1% 

$6,190 

7% 

10 

TX 

$341,098 

$2,294 

$29,092 

9% 

$56,804 

17% 

$255,202 

75% 

95 

UT 

$74,800 

$2,750 

$57,000 

76% 

$6,300 

8% 

$11,500 

15% 

11 

VA 

$173,379 

$500 

$158,000 

91% 

$6,400 

4% 

$8,979 

5% 

24 

WA 

$170,564 

$10,543 

$134,564 

79% $1,000 

1% 

$35,000 

21% 

14 

Total 

$8,818,875 


$2,936,335 


$2,659,601 


$3,222,939 


312 


Source: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA) from Final Descriptive Report (FDR) data submitted annu¬ 
ally to NASAA and the NEA, 2008. 

Data reflect most current grant data available from each state (2005 or 2006). 


State Humanities Councils 

NEH distributes its federal-state partnership funds through the State Humanities Councils, which 
are private nonprofit organizations as opposed to the state agencies that are the partners with NEA 
and IMLS. The councils are made up of between 15 and 20 volunteers, one-fourth of whom are 
appointed by the governor. All humanities councils operate under a 501(c)(3) status. By law, at 
least 20% of NEH’s program funds must be allocated to the federal-state partnership program. The 
minimum award is $200,000, and the rest of the allocation is distributed by equal share and by 
a formula. Individual councils may also apply to other divisions within NEH. The award from NEH 
must be matched 1:1, but goods and services may be counted toward the matching requirement. In 
FY 2006, the total allocation to NEH’s federal-state partnership program was $38,446 million. 


67 









































FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CULTURAL SECTOR 


Humanities Councils do not provide general operating support to museums; instead, they 
encourage museums to expand and enhance public understanding and appreciation for the 
humanities by means of exhibits and public programming. Study and appreciation of humanities 
may include, for example, exhibits and programs focusing on state and local history. Like State 
Arts Agencies, State Humanities Councils conduct peer review evaluations. 

The study team asked the Division of Federal-State Partnerships within NEH to provide data 
on the grants that State Humanities Councils award to support museums in the states. NEH 
provided information for the same 15 states in the sample for SAAs (see Tables VIII.2 and VIII.3). 
Table VIII.2 reflects State Humanities Council awards made to museums in the 15-state sample, 
by category of purpose. Almost three-fourths of the support was devoted to exhibits and public 
programming. The other categories of support fall far behind, but in general are the same catego¬ 
ries that NEH emphasizes: materials for exhibits and programming, care of collections, and profes¬ 
sional development. 

Table VI11.2. State Humanities Council Grants to Museums in 15 States, FY 2006 


- - - 

Project 

— 

Amount 

% 

Exhibits 

$332,968 

39% 

Public Programming 

$291,398 

35% 

Materials 

$145,954 

17% 

Care of Collections 

$40,690 

5% 

Professional Development 

$30,525 

4% 

Total 

$841,535 

100% 


Source: National Endowment for the Humanities, 2008. 


Humanities Council awards to museums are on average smaller that those provided by State 
Arts Agencies and than most federal competitive grant awards. In Table VIII.3, to use Pennsylvania 
again for comparison, the Pennsylvania Humanities Council made 35 awards to 32 museums for 
a total of $106,847. The average amount of museum award from the Pennsylvania Humanities 
Council was $3,053. The North Dakota Humanities Council gave out three awards to three sepa¬ 
rate museums for a total of $22,100, with an average award to each museum of $7,367. Like the 
SAAs, the Humanities Councils decide their individual strategies for funding after assessing needs 
within their states. 


68 
















Table VIII.3. State Humanities Council Grants to Museums In 15 Selected States, FY 2006 


State 

Dollars to 
Museums 

Average $ per 
Grant 

Number of 
Museums 
Receiving $ 

Average $ per 
Museum 

No. of Museum 
Grants 

Arizona 

52,020 

4,335 

' n 

4,729 

12 

Hawaii 

117,450 

6,525 

13 

9,035 

18 

Maine 

32,475 

1,910 

17 

1,910 

17 

Michigan 

78,967 

7,897 

9 

8,774 

10 

Mississippi 

71,260 

3,393 

20 

3,563 

21 

Missouri 

27,608 

2,510 

10 

2,761 

11 

Nebraska 

43,220 

3,087 

8 

5,403 

14 

North Dakota 

22,100 

7,367 

3 

7,367 

3 

Ohio 

55,850 

2,428 

23 

2,428 

23 

Pennsylvania 

106,847 

3,053 

32 

3,339 

35 

South Carolina 

24,459 

2,446 

9 

2,718 

10 

Texas 

59,074 

2,110 

24 

2,461 

28 

Utah 

23,867 

1,836 

9 

2,652 

13 

Washington 

36,285 

1,910 

11 

3,299 

19 

Virginia 

80,050 

5,718 

18 

4.447 

14 

Total 

831,532 


217 


248 


Source: National Endowment for the Humanities, 2008. 


Grants to States for Libraries 

The Grants to States program for libraries in IMLS is by far the largest of the three programs under 
review. Its purpose is the delivery of library services to all states and territories. To participate in 
this program, each state must establish a State Library Administrative Agency (SLAA) and certify 
that it has the fiscal and legal authority, as well as the capacity, to administer the federal funds 
that it receives. Forty-nine SLAAs are located in the executive branch of state government. 60 In 
administering these funds, each state must develop a five-year plan approved by IMLS that outlines 
programs to strengthen the efficiency, reach, and effectiveness of library services. These programs 
support the six Grants to States priorities: 


60 Stats Library Administrativs Agencies ars in all 50 statss, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 
Northern Marianas, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 2 SLAAs are part 
of the legislative branch of state government and 49 are part of the executive branch. Of these 49 agencies, 18 are 
independent agencies and 31 are situated within a larger agency such as the department of education or department 
of cultural resources. Source: Henderson, E., Manjarrez, C., Miller, K., Dorinski, S., Freeman, M., Music, C., 0 Shea, P., 
Sheckells, C. (2008) State Library Agency Survey: Fiscal Year 2007 (IMLS-2008-StLA-02). Washington, DC: Institute 
of Museum and Library Services. 


69 


























































FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CULTURAL SECTOR 


1. expand services for learning and access to information and educational resources in a 
variety of formats, in all types of libraries, for individuals of all ages; 

2. develop library services that provide all users access to information through local, state, 
regional, national, and international electronic networks; 

3. provide electronic and other linkages between and among all types of libraries; 

4. develop public and private partnerships with other agencies and community-based organi¬ 
zations; 

5. target library services to individuals of diverse geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic 
backgrounds, to individuals with disabilities, and to individuals with limited functional 
literacy or information skills; and 

6. target library and information services to persons having difficulty using a library and to 
underserved urban and rural communities, including children from families with incomes 
below the poverty line. 

Following approval of the five-year plan, a base grant amount is allocated to each state, with 
the remaining funds distributed to each state on a per capita basis. For FY 2008, the base grant 
was $540,968, with a total allotment to SLAAs of $160,885,357. 61 Grants are also made avail¬ 
able to nine U.S. territories. 96% of the allotment awarded to the SLAAs by IMLS must be spent 
within the six priorities listed above, and none can be used for construction. The SLAA must match 
in cash the federal funds it receives with nonfederal funds, with a 66% federal to 34% nonfederal 
funding ratio. In addition, each state must sustain a "maintenance of effort” level of state spending 
on libraries and library programs to ensure that federal funds do not replace state funds in support¬ 
ing state-based programs. State expenditures that demonstrate “maintenance of effort” address 
four broad purposes of the program: 

1. to consolidate federal library service programs; 

2. to promote improvement in library services in all types of libraries in order to better serve 
the people of the United States; 

3. to facilitate access to resources in all types of libraries for the purpose of cultivating an 
educated and informed citizenry; and 

4. to encourage resource sharing among all types of libraries for the purpose of achieving 
economical and efficient delivery of library services to the public. 

“Maintenance of effort” is determined if state expenditures remain at or above the average of 
the total of such expenditures in the previous three fiscal years. If the previous year’s state expen¬ 
diture is below the average of the total expenditures in three fiscal years preceding that year, then 


61 A state-by-state account, including U.S. territories, of SLAA allotments from FY 2004 to FY 2008 is available at 
www.imls.gov/programs/allotments.shtm. 


70 






the next fiscal year allocation to the state is reduced proportionately. Each state may establish an 
advisory group to guide the work of the SLAA. At the end of the five-year period, each state reports 
to I MLS on its results in achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the five-year plan. 

Section Summary 

Table VIII.4 outlines the comparisons among the three federal-state partnership funding mecha¬ 
nisms in this section. Several key components occur across the federal-state partnerships at IMLS, 
NEA, and NEH, which are likely to influence the creation and implementation of a new federal- 
state partnership for museums. 


Table VI11.4. Summary of Current Federal-State Partnership Funding Mechanisms 


Federal Partner 

IMLS 

NEA 

NEH 

State Partner 

State Library Administrative 
Agency 

State Arts Agency 

State Humanities Council 

Purpose 

Provide equity of access to 
information and learning to 
all people 

Furnish adequate programs, 
facilities and services in the 
arts to all American people. 

Increase public awareness 
of and participation in the 
humanities in all places in 
the country 

Governance 

State agency 

State agency 

Nonprofit organization 

Base Award to State 

$540,968 

$200,000 

$200,000 

FY 2006 Appropriation 

$163.7 million 

$40.6 million 

$38.4 million 

% of Federal Agency 
Budget 

Per enacted FY 2006 bud¬ 
get: 66.25% 

Min 40% by law 

Min 20% by law 

FY 2008 Appropriation 

$160.9 million 

$41.4 million 

$31.7 million 

Adjustments 

Base grant given with 
remaining funds distributed 
by population 

Base grant given with 
remaining funds distributed 
by equal share 

Base grant given with 
remaining funds distributed 
by equal share and by 
population 

State Match/Maintenance 
of Effort Requirements 

66% federal/34% non- 
federal funds 

50% federal/50% non- 
federal funds 

50% federal /50% non- 
federal funds 

Mandatory Provisions, 
Restrictions on Use 

96% of allotment must be 
spent on the six priorities 
defined in legislation for 

IMLS grants to SLAAs; funds 
cannot be used for construc¬ 
tion 

Funds must be used within 
the defined purposes of NEA 
legislation 

All funds must be used for 
the humanities that match 
the funding areas of the NEH 

Public Participation 
Requirements 

Yes: SLAA must make state 
plan available to the public, 
and the plan must describe 
procedures that the SLAA 
will use to involve library 
users in policy decisions 
regarding the implementa¬ 
tion of the LSTA program 

Yes: State agency must hold 
public meeting of state plan 
for public opportunity to 
comment 

Yes: Councils must give 
their public an opportunity 
to comment (ex: open board 
meeting, public meeting, 
Internet, etc) 

Planning Requirement 

Yes: 5 year plan 

Yes: Each state determines 
the length of its state plan 

Yes: Annual compliance plan 
that includes quantitative 
data collection 

Data Collection/ 
Performance Evaluation 
Requirement 

Annual reporting; 5 year 
evaluation 

Annual reporting 

5 year assessment with 
qualitative evaluation 


Source: IMLS, NEA, and NEH. 


71 






























FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CULTURAL SECTOR 


The IMLS partnership with SLAAs is focused on capacity building and the delivery of services 
across the library sector, while the NEA partnership with SAAs and the NEH partnership with 
Humanities Councils are focused on advancing their respective disciplines by supporting the arts 
and the humanities at the state level. While NEA and NEH federal-state partnerships contribute 
considerable funds to museums for programs and services in advancement of their respective 
agency missions, no federal-state partnership addresses the capacity of the museum sector and its 
delivery of museum services as a whole. 

In each partnership, certain commonalities exist in the distribution of federal funds through 
the state-level partner. Each of the federal agencies allocates a base grant to the state partner 
and distributes any remaining funds by population and/or equal distribution. With the exception 
of NEH, the agencies require that federal funds be matched in some proportion by state funding, 
and in all cases their use is conditioned by the distinct purposes of the federal agency. In addition, 
state-level partners are required in all three instances to have statewide planning and regular evalu¬ 
ation and some form of public involvement through open board meetings, public hearings, public 
advisory committees, or some other means. In short, whether through a state agency or a private 
nonprofit organization, the state partner for the IMLS, NEA, and NEH programs must have some 
infrastructure in place in order to fulfill the partnership requirements. 

Throughout the history of the program, most SLAAs have been able to meet or exceed the 
match requirement of the Grants to States program. However, at times some states have been 
unable to meet the “maintenance of effort” requirement for a fiscal year. While a count of the 
number of states able to meet NEA’s match requirement was not available at the time of this writ¬ 
ing, states have generally been able to maintain a high ratio of state to federal funding and to meet 
match requirements. For example, in 2008, the ratio of state to federal support of the SAAs was 
10.6:1, and it has been higher in recent years. 62 State expenditures are vulnerable to budgetary 
pressures in times of fiscal crisis; however, the leveraging power of federal funds is evidenced in 
the frequent ability of library and art agencies to meet or exceed their match requirements. 63 

The NEH federal-state partnership distributes federal funds through the humanities councils, 
which operate independently of state government as private nonprofits. Their nonprofit status quali¬ 
fies them for deductible donations from corporations and foundations, as well as individual donors, 
and they can match federal funds with state or other funds. In addition, their match requirement 
can be partially fulfilled by in-kind goods and services. In FY 2005, for example, state govern¬ 
ments funded just 15.5% of the total State Humanities Council budgets. 64 As a result, Humanities 
Councils may not be as vulnerable as state agencies to budgetary pressures within the state legis- 


62 This information was obtained from the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. 

63 Lowell, Julia F. 2004. State Arts Agencies 1965-2003: Whose Interests to Serve? Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corpo¬ 
ration. 

b4 Federation of State Humanities Councils. May 10, 2006. "FY 2005 Funding for State Humanities Councils.” 
Handout received at March 2007 AAM-sponsored Conversation on Federal Funding, Washington, DC. 


72 








lature because of their diversified funding base. This is not to imply that Humanities Councils are 
immune to any number of economic factors within their individual states, and historical informa¬ 
tion regarding Humanities Council budgets would need to be considered in a comprehensive 
comparison of state agency partners and private nonprofit partners in a federal-state partnership. 

Matching fund requirements are designed so that federal funds do not replace state funds but 
instead act as an incentive to maintain support when state budgets are constrained. In light of 
the issues discussed above, if a federal-state museum partnership is to be considered, it is very 
important to identify differences and implications among delivery mechanisms at the state level to 
ensure that federal funds contribute to maintaining and leveraging state support. 

In each partnership, certain commonalities exist in the distribution of federal funds through 
the state-level partner. Each of the federal agencies allocates a base grant to the state partner 
and distributes any remaining funds by population and/or equal distribution. With the exception 
of NEH, the agencies require that federal funds be matched in some proportion by state fund¬ 
ing, and in all cases their use is conditioned by the distinct purposes of the federal agency. In 
addition, state-level partners are required in all three instances to have statewide planning and 
regular evaluation and, though not a direct requirement of IMLS, some kind of public involvement 
through open board meetings, public hearings, public advisory committees, or some other means. 
In short, whether through a state agency or a private nonprofit organization, the state partner for 
the IMLS, NEA, and NEH programs must have some infrastructure in place in order to fulfill the 
partnership requirements. 

Furthermore, because the criteria for participation in the existing federal-state partnership pro¬ 
grams operate on certain assumptions about the purpose of the federal funds, a common under¬ 
standing of state-level capacities and of the number and capacities of the individual institutions 
that make up the sector being supported is essential. This is one of the fundamental strengths 
of the IMLS state-based library program, which collects sound current data on the number and 
capacities of each state’s libraries. Similar systematic data collection on the museum sector, 
including data on state-level infrastructure and institutional capacity, would be essential to an 
informed discussion of the delivery and use of federal funds to the states in a new federal-state 
partnership for museums. 






Public Funding 
for Museums at 

J 1 n J to T m rol 


Pictured: A family visits the pachyderm exhibit at the Brookfield 
Zoo of the Chicago Zoological Society, in Brookfield, Illinois. 


This section provides information about state government funding 
for public museums and agencies that fund museums and about 
perceptions of the public character and role of museums. As this 
report has shown, the federal-state funding partnership model is 
structured in different ways in the arts, in the humanities, and 
for libraries. The following questions guide the analysis: What 
would policymakers want to know about states in order to design 
a federal-state funding structure for museums? What structures 
already exist that might be leveraged for a federal-state funding 
partnership for museums? Are there existing state-level structures 
that might affect the efficiency and equitability of a new federal- 
state funding partnership? To answer these questions, a clearer 
understanding of the cultural sector at the state level is needed. 

The Urban Institute (Ul) gathered field and administrative 
data on systems of support for culture and quantified the dollars 
delivered through these systems in eight states selected as case 
studies for the report. A first round of states was selected based 
on identifying ongoing state-level projects supporting museums: 
Maine had an active, small-grants program run by the state 
museum and an orientation toward greater integration of public 
sector cultural agencies; Michigan had a developing alliance 
working at the state level to leverage private and federal invest- 


74 






PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE STATE LEVEL 


merits in museums; Washington had robust capital grant-making programs and a host of large 
new cultural facilities. Ul then chose to visit Illinois and Pennsylvania because an analysis of 
IRS Form 990 data indicated that these states make high levels of investment in museums, 
Massachusetts because the difference between very high federal investments in the state and 
very low state investments was striking, New Mexico because federal grants are most widely 
distributed across museums in the state, and Virginia because it is a southern state that ranks 
high in federal support. 

In the Ul analysis of interview and administrative data across the eight states, three key 
dimensions of state-level support emerged in which states vary in significant ways: 

1. level and types of state investment in museums; 

2. level of integration in the state’s public cultural sector; and 

3. perceptions about the public character and role of museums. 

Information about these dimensions of state-level support is presented below, along with 
discussions of why and how this information might be important to developing a federal-state 
structure for supporting museums. Full portraits of state-level support in the eight states 
studied are presented in appendix D. 

Level and Types of State Investment 

Knowing how much a state invests in its public sector cultural infrastructure provides a 
baseline against which to measure the future financial impact of federal-state partnerships. 
Flowever, the condition of cultural sector data at the state level presents serious challenges to 
developing comprehensive plans for museum support at the state level and to monitoring and 
measuring the financial impact of a new funding model. The research team found significant 
barriers to collecting comprehensive information in a systematized way about state support 
to the cultural sector. State-level data collection proved time-consuming because the infor¬ 
mation, when available, was recorded by an array of agencies which, in many cases, are not 
coordinated with one another. Moreover, data were often incomplete or incompatible because 
they are organized and stored in different formats across several different agencies. When the 
data were collected, they were often not readily available to the public via government publica¬ 
tions or Web sites. In other cases, agencies do not specifically identify museums as a category 
of recipients of state government dollars. Apart from the challenges in identifying funding 
amounts, it can be very difficult to track funding of different types. The study team found it 
particularly difficult to track museum funding in states where a large proportion of dollars are 
distributed to museums through state earmarks. The researchers made every effort to gather 
as comprehensive an account of state-level financial information as possible from the eight 
states, and they express their gratitude to participating state agencies for the work required to 
provide this information. 




PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE STATE LEVEL 


Through detailed interviews and information requests with state-level agencies, the study team 
collected and compiled FY 2007 data on levels and types of state investment in the eight state 
case studies. These data show that there is a high degree of variability among the eight states in 
terms of the scale and character of investment in the public cultural sector infrastructure and the 
mechanisms used to deliver public dollars to museums. 

Figure IX.1 shows FY 2007 levels of funding going into the public cultural sector in each of 
the eight states studied. It compares investments in the public culture sector based on the actual 
dollar expenditures in FY 2007. It also shows the proportions of state funding that go to public 
museums versus museum funding agencies versus other public sector cultural sector agencies. The 
blue portions of this figure represent state dollars going to agencies that fund museums, including 
the State Arts Agency, State Humanities Council, and State Historic Preservation Office. The red 
portions represent state dollars going to public museums and to recurring line items for specific, 
named museums. These dollars are not exclusive to museums. The green portions represent dollars 
going to state libraries and other public cultural sector agencies and offices, such as administrative 
and umbrella cultural agencies. 

Figure IX. 1. Public Cultural Sector Dollars Apportioned to Museum Funders, Public Museums, and 
Other Cultural Agencies, FY 2007 

Washington 
Virginia 
Pennsylvania 
New Mexico 
Michigan 
Maine 
Massachusetts 
Illinois 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 14 


| Museum Funders^Jj Public Museums Library and Other 


Illinois 

$40,035,243 

$19,202,607 

$65,864,177 

Massachusetts 

$15,121,605 

$4,591,045 

$1,814,562 

Maine 

$4,097,433 

$4,028,758 

$6,229,613 

Michigan 

$8,561,400 

$11,700,500 

$31,447,400 

New Mexico 

$5,256,310 

$26,621,600 

$9,516,800 

Pennsylvania 

$30,653,700 

$61,741,000 

$29,365,494 

Virginia 

$35,056,386 

$34,968,046 

$41,272,180 

Washington 

$13,172,468 

$8,450,569 

$20,741,547 



Source: Urban Institute analysis of data from a variety of state agencies. 





































■■I 


Figure IX.1 shows that states vary widely in terms of the number of dollars they invest in the 
public cultural sector. But these eight states are also vastly different in terms of population, rev¬ 
enues, and overall expenditures. To accurately compare levels of investment, the Urban Institute 
needed to construct ways to compare these states of varied size. One way to compare these invest¬ 
ment levels is to compare per capita expenditures. Table IX.1 shows that there was a wide range of 
FY 2007 investment in the public cultural sector as measured by per capita expenditures. 

Table IX. 1. FY 2007 Per Capita State Expenditures In the Cultural Sector 


State 

$ Per capita 
expenditures 

New Mexico 

15 

Virginia 

9.5 

Pennsylvania 

8.25 

Maine 

6 

Illinois 

5.25 

Washington 

5 

Michigan 

4 

Massachusetts 

2.5 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Case Studies, 2008. 

To compare states with varied budget size, Ul calculated how much a state invests in public 
museums and the public cultural agencies that deliver dollars to museums (adding together the red 
and blue portions in Figure IX.1) and calculated that amount as a proportion of the state’s total 
general fund expenditures. Using this “state share,” states with varied budget sizes can be com¬ 
pared with one another. 65 

When the shares of these eight states are compared, the range in commitments to the public 
cultural sector remains quite wide (see Table IX.2). The size of a given state’s budget does not 
appear to have a significant relation to the share of its overall expenditures on museums and the 
agencies that fund museums. Small New Mexico leads the eight states in this comparison, invest¬ 
ing 0.21% of its total FY 2006 expenditures in appropriations to the cultural sector. Large Pennsyl¬ 
vania is second, but invests a share substantially lower than New Mexico. Midsize Massachusetts is 
last, investing just 0.037% in the cultural sector. 


65 The calculations do not include appropriations for capital investment. Although these expenditures often are sub¬ 
stantial, they proved too difficult to track systematically. These figures are provided for comparative purposes only. 


77 





























PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE STATE LEVEL 


Table IX. 2. State Share of Museum Dollars as a Percentage of Total Expenditures 


State 

Rank 

Total General Fund 
Expenditures FY 2006 

Total State 
Allocations to 
Museum Funding 
Agencies 

Museum Funders 
as % of total 
expenditures 

New Mexico 

1 

$11,842,000,000 

$25,394,100 

0.21% 

Pennsylvania 

2 

$53,911,000,000 

$79,380,800 

0.15% 

Illinois 

3 

$43,422,000,000 

$57,209,807 

0.13% 

Virginia 

4 

$31,882,000,000 

$40,893,532 

0.13% 

Washington 

5 

$27,839,000,000 

$15,945,345 

0.06% 

Maine 

6 

$7,100,000,000 

$3,443,749 

0.05% 

Michigan 

7 

$41,728,000,000 

$19,565,400 

0.05% 

Massachusetts 

8 

$39,207,000,000 

$14,481,312 

0.04% 


Source: National Association of State Budget Officers FY 2006 State Expenditures. 


Ul also investigated the possibility that state shares might be related to population size, 
level of federal investment, or size of the museum sector. Although neither population size nor 
federal investments appear to be significant, the level of investment these eight states make in 
public museums and agencies that fund museums does appear to be related to the size of the 
museum sector. With the exception of the large museum sector and lower level of state invest¬ 
ment in Massachusetts, states that have more museums tend to invest at higher levels than 
states with fewer museums. 

Among the eight states studied, Ul found a wide range of funding mechanisms, from line 
items that go directly to state-run museums to grant-making programs that deliver program and 
capital support to earmarks (see Figure IX.2). Ul’s interviews in these states suggest that the 
most important types of state government support for museums are general operating support 
(GOS) dollars and capital dollars. Interview respondents claimed that GOS was key to sustain¬ 
ing museums financially and that state and local governments are the most likely avenues for 
such support. 

In certain cases, state-level GOS programs have been put in place. State Arts Agencies in 
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Virginia deliver large-scale, competitively awarded 
GOS dollars to museums. Except in Massachusetts, these dollars are available only to art 
museums. 

Capital funding also emerged as an important type of support for museums at the state 
level. Capital funding appears to occur primarily through earmarks to large museums and to 
museums in districts with a history of congressional and local community advocacy for muse¬ 
ums. However, in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, large-scale state-level competitive 
capital grant-making programs have recently been developed. 

These publicly administered, competitive GOS and capital programs do not appear to 
supplant other types of support given to large museums. For example, in many ways GOS 
programs function like line items for those museums; although they must reapply for them at 


78 




















the end of each funding cycle, these museums usually are awarded the grants. In addition, these 
programs appear to leverage the power of larger, more politically connected museums in order 
to channel support to a cohort of other museums that might not be able to secure state dollars 
through earmarks or line items, which can require political influence. 

The leveraging power of competitive programs is apparent in established capital grant-making. 
In Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, respondents explicitly stated that competitive capital 
grant-making programs were established in order to more equitably balance or formalize a process 
of delivering state dollars that previously went to a few institutions through earmarks and line 
items. With publicly administered state-level funding programs in place, larger, politically con¬ 
nected museums gained security while smaller, less politically connected museums gained access 
to state dollars. The perception among respondents was that this process had the net effect of 
bringing more state money into the system, rather than merely creating increased demand for a 
level amount of dollars. Further, publicly administered programs can be structured and monitored 
to ensure that museums of different types and sizes and in different places around the state are 
securing some portion of government resources. 


Figure IX. 2. Mechanisms of Support at the State Level in Eight States 


Capital Support 

Program Support 

General Operating Support 

Earmarks 

Earmarks 

Regular allocations 

Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, 
Pennsylvania, Virginia 

Virginia 

To state-managed museums in 
each state (high in New Mexico, 
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Michigan) 

Grants 

Grants 

Line items 

Maine, Massachusetts, Washington 

Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, New Mexico, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, 

Washington 

Illinois, New Mexico, 

Pennsylvania (heritage, science), 
Virginia (heritage) 



Nonrecurring allocations 



Massachusetts, Michigan, 
Pennsylvania (arts), Virginia (arts) 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Case Studies, 2008. 


Level of Integration in the State’s Cultural Sector 

Knowing about agencies that support museums and sponsor museum services at the state level 
provides essential information about potential federal-state partners. Ul found significant differ¬ 
ences in how public cultural sector agencies are organized and in how often and in what ways they 
work together. However, the level of cultural sector integration in a state does not appear to have 


79 


















PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE STATE LEVEL 


any relationship to how much the state invests in its public cultural sector. New Mexico’s sector 
is highly integrated and invests at a high level. While Virginia’s investments are also high on a per 
capita basis, it has one of the most diffuse public cultural sectors of the states studied. The state’s 
population size does not appear relevant to how integrated its public cultural sector is. Less popu¬ 
lated states like New Mexico and Maine are highly integrated. More populated states like Pennsyl¬ 
vania, Illinois, and Virginia are less integrated. 

In three of the states studied, an umbrella cultural agency integrates authority, planning, and 
funding in the public cultural sector. In New Mexico, the Office of Cultural Affairs leads cultural 
planning, operates cultural institutions across the sector, and controls the substantial proportion 
of state money entering the public and nonprofit cultural sector. In Maine, public cultural agencies 
and nonprofit organizations that receive ongoing state funding belong to the Maine Cultural Affairs 
Council, an umbrella agency authorized by the state legislature to promote and develop the cultural 
sector and administer a special funding program. Directors of the individual agencies retain autono¬ 
mous authority over their programming, staff, and finances. In Michigan, public cultural sector 
agencies are part of the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries. Respondents sug¬ 
gested that while this agency could potentially serve to integrate the public cultural sector through 
centralized authority, shared planning, and funding, it does not currently do so. 

In three states, Ul did not find integration across the whole of the public cultural sector, but 
did find parts of the public cultural sector where shared cultural planning and funding take place. 
The Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC) administers funding very broadly across the cultural 
sector and leads cultural planning for the state. However, the Massachusetts Commonwealth 
Museum, Historical Commission, Archives, and Library are not under MCC but rather are governed 
by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. In Washington, heritage and historical agencies and organi¬ 
zations are strongly integrated with one another and have a powerful voice in the state legislature. 
Respondents suggested that the coherence of the heritage sector helped push forward the develop¬ 
ment and funding of the state’s new $110 million State Library, Archives and Historical Exhibition 
building. While Pennsylvania’s public cultural sector is rather diffuse, the Pennsylvania Arts Council 
leads planning and funds in the arts, while the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 
supports a range of public historical monuments, nonprofit historical societies, and history muse¬ 
ums as well as administering line items to museums throughout the sector (including zoos and 
botanical gardens). 

Two of the states studied have diffuse levels of public cultural sector integration. At the state 
level, the Illinois public cultural sector is structured around several large and autonomous agen¬ 
cies. However, the Chicago Parks District Museums in the Parks Consortium does represent an 
important arena of collaboration around funding. Much of Virginia’s funding for museums is not 
even organized through agencies but rather is provided through line items and allocations delivered 
directly to individual museums. 

Where there is a relatively high level of integration of authority, planning, and funding in the 
public cultural sector, federal-state partnerships are likely to be easier to establish. Authority on 






decision-making is likely to be clearer, agencies are likely to have had experience working together 
and to have had the opportunity to accommodate themselves to distribution decisions, and lead¬ 
ership in the cultural sector is likely to have had opportunities to build shared plans and goals 
together. In some states, it will be necessary to build a structure through which to establish a 
federal-state partnership, both in terms of creating an actual office and in terms of building this 
shared bundle of experiences and goals. But perhaps even more challenging is the problem that in 
many states, some existing structures serve isolated components of the museum sector. For exam¬ 
ple, Ul interviews suggest that the infrastructures for funding and supporting art museums and 
history museums are well developed and fully autonomous and even, in some cases, have a history 
of competition for authority and dollars in the public cultural sector. In some states, getting these 
agencies and organizations to work together and to distribute federal dollars efficiently and equita¬ 
bly may prove challenging, as both public administrators and museums may have vested interests 
in maintaining the existing systems. 

Perceptions about the Public Character and Role of Museums 

State-level perceptions about the public character and role of museums can provide a valuable 
sense of the strengths and gaps in relationships between a state’s public cultural sector and 
museum sector. The case studies show that there are clear differences in how public administrators 
and museum professionals understand the public character and roles of museums, and how these 
values relate to the levels and kinds of taxpayer support that should be delivered to museums. 

Such differences are particularly striking in a comparison between New Mexico and Massachusetts. 

New Mexican respondents consider museums to be part of the public sector and are proud of 
their government’s history of robust support for museums. Respondents suggested that the diverse 
and stable public museum infrastructure in New Mexico provides important and well-understood 
benefits to the public. When assets come into the public domain, there is a clear pathway and 
source of support for their incorporation into the public sector through public museums and public 
cultural agencies. Further, museums are acknowledged as essential to the cultural sector’s impact 
on the state’s identity and economy. The state invests heavily in a system of public museums that 
enable state government to fulfill the purposes of holding valuable items of cultural property, con¬ 
tributing to the economy through tourism, and providing museum services to the public. Flowever, 
New Mexico provides only irregular state support for private, nonprofit museums. If state support 
to all museums (including nonprofit museums) were to be measured per institution, it would appear 
low. State taxpayer dollars in New Mexico go, in large part, to public museums. 

In contrast, respondents suggested that in Massachusetts there is a long standing belief that 
that wealthy contributors ( in particular families that entered New England aristocratic society 
during the nineteenth century ) should pay for (and control) cultural institutions, including muse¬ 
ums, that cultural institutions are the responsibility of this sector of society. Even in Boston—the 
commonwealth’s largest city and home to internationally renowned museums—regular municipal 
support for cultural institutions was perceived to be negligible or nonexistent. When Boston city 


81 






PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE STATE LEVEL 


government came to be controlled primarily by members of Boston’s immigrant communities, the 
city distanced itself from its cultural institutions, which turned for support to the state, the federal 
government, and East Coast philanthropists. Respondents overwhelmingly identified the support of 
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy at the federal level as essential to the health and well-being of the state’s 
cultural institutions. Revenue for the Massachusetts Cultural Council is generated through a state 
lottery, not through regular taxpayer revenues, and these lottery funds have been curtailed and 
slashed repeatedly. Those state dollars that are delivered to museums in Massachusetts go, in large 
part, to private, nonprofit museums to fulfill their organizational missions rather than some explicit 
public purposes designated by the state. 

Because states view the public character and roles of museums differently, the public cultural 
sector may have greater or more consistent experience and commitment to working with certain 
types of museums or to promoting certain types of museum services. In Illinois, for example, the 
state’s definition of a "public museum”—any museum on public land—means that almost all state 
and local dollars are tunneled to those institutions alone. In Illinois, state dollars are delivered to 
other museums through the state arts council, for example, but museums on public land are accus¬ 
tomed to state requirements and have longer lasting ties with state government. 

Section Summary 

This section has examined the cultural sector at the state level, providing information about state 
government funding for public museums and agencies that fund museums and about perceptions 
of the public character and roles of museums. Through this analysis, several important characteris¬ 
tics of state-level support for museums emerge. 

While a variety of state-level models for administering cultural grants to museums exist, the 
experience and commitment to working with certain museums or types of museums is shaped by 
perceptions about the public character and roles of museums and the expertise developed over 
time. A few states have dedicated agencies that fund across the range of museum types, but this 
funding may not be distributed across the entire museum sector. For example, New Mexico's Office 
of Cultural Affairs funds multiple types of state museums, but not private nonprofit museums. 

In other cases, where individual programs within state agencies fund both state-run and private 
nonprofit museums of different types, other factors may limit the scope of their funding efforts. 

The Public Museum Grant program administered by the Illinois State Museum under the Illinois 
Department of Natural Resources funds a range of museum types, but only institutions situated on 
public land. 

In contrast to dedicated state agencies or programs within agencies that fund across museum 
types and/or across the sector, state public cultural agencies have operated with a great deal of 
autonomy, serving the arts, the humanities, heritage, libraries, and archives as distinct constituen¬ 
cies. Federal dollars may help integrate the public cultural sector at the state level, but they may 
also prove a point of contention, as established agencies may have to develop new administrative 
policies or shift from past practice to serve a broad cross section of museums. 







General operating support was highlighted as an important role in state support of the museum 
sector. A federal-state partnership in the museum sector should take into account the importance 
of GOS and the key role of state government in delivering this type of support. 

To inform the planning of a potential federal-state partnership, it will be necessary to gather 
basic information regarding the size and scope of the sector. Designing and implementing a way 
to systematically collect and report data on funding for the state-level public cultural sector will 
be critical to measuring the impacts of a federal-state funding partnership. The implementation of 
more directed funding from the federal level should take into account the level and kinds of vari¬ 
ability among states in terms of investments, public perceptions of museums, distinctions between 
public and private museums, and degree of integration across the public cultural sector. 






This section provides information about local-level funding of 
museums. As with state-level support of museums, there is 
significant variation in the size of the museum sector, the amount 
of public dollars available, and the mechanisms for the delivery of 
these dollars to museums. However, in regions across the coun¬ 
try, the researchers found particular instances of funding at the 
local level that play a key role in the contribution of public dollars 
to museums. In Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, 
institutions clustered around a specific urban area (Denver, Chi¬ 
cago, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh) were shown to be highly associ¬ 
ated with the public sector at the local level. An understanding of 
the contributions of local government to public funding of muse¬ 
ums informs a discussion of how these mechanisms may relate 
to the relationships between museums and the federal and state 
levels of the public sector. 

The MPFS discovered a solid consensus among its respon¬ 
dents regarding the importance of local support for museums. By 
a wide margin, the survey respondents maintained that general 
operating support at the local level is crucial (see Table VI.5). 
Furthermore, local government support comprises a significant 
part of museum revenue by type, ranging from 76.4% for zoos, 
aquariums, and zoological societies to 23.8% for hybrid muse- 


84 







PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL 


urns. Of the nine museum types, four depended on local government for more than 50% of their 
revenues (see Table VI.2). 

There is no single mechanism for delivering local support to museums. Like states, communi¬ 
ties across the country have developed highly diverse strategies to support their cultural institu¬ 
tions. Those funding mechanisms are as varied as the history, demography, economy, and politics 
of the individual locations. Some counties have their county history museum as a line item in the 
county government budget. Some cities and towns deliver direct support to local museums as an 
investment in their community life and as a tourist attraction strategy. 

A strong environment of local public support to museums today may be grounded in a historical 
precedent set by local government and cultural institutions. One such example occurs in Chicago, 
where some of the city’s most renowned museums have had a relationship with public lands since 
the Columbian Exhibition in 1893. The Museums in the Park and Chicago Zoo form a consortium 
of museums supported by the Chicago Park District (CPD). As part of the CPD and as public muse¬ 
ums by definition of their existence on public land, these 11 museums receive the largest amount 
of public dollars in Illinois—$39 million from the CPD in FY 2008 (see Figure AD.l in appendix D 
for detail). This historical relationship between museums and their connection to government land 
has proved to be highly influential to their sustained support by the city government. 

While the Museums in the Park and Chicago Zoo provide a model of the impacts of a histori¬ 
cal relationship between museums and public land, the most common forms of support at the 
local level are option taxes: lodging taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. According to a report 
prepared by Americans for the Arts, an advocacy organization based in Washington, DC, 38% of 
the 50 largest U.S. cities use revenues from lodging taxes to provide ongoing operational support 
for their cultural organizations; 20% use property taxes; and 8% use sales taxes. 66 When com¬ 
munities support museums with taxes, the general process is to define a tax district and legislate 
that a certain amount of the revenues collected in that location will be dedicated to museums. The 
legislation usually involves a ballot initiative proposed by advocates who undertake a public educa¬ 
tion campaign. Campaign success varies; Americans for the Arts tracked 34 state and local ballot 
initiatives in November 2004 and reported that 28 initiatives passed in favor of museums. 67 

Property Tax Support for Museums 

Dedicating a portion of property taxes to support cultural institutions is an additional support 
mechanism that can be found at the local level. Property taxpayers in Denver, Colorado, for exam¬ 
ple, accepted an addition to their taxes in fall 2007 to support capital maintenance and construc¬ 
tion of the Denver Botanic Gardens and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. One of the 
largest property tax districts defined to support museums is in and around St. Louis, Missouri. 


66 “Local Option Taxes to Support the Arts,” prepared for the Mayor’s Arts and Culture Funding Tax Force, Atlanta, 
Georgia, September 18, 2006. www.AmericansForTheArts.org. 

67 Breitkopf, Susan. 2005. “Museums as Economic Engines.” Museum News (March/April): 41. 






- 




PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL 


The Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District in the City and County of St. Louis was cre¬ 
ated in 1969 by the Missouri Legislature. The St. Louis cultural district taxes originally supported 
three institutions: the St. Louis Zoo, St. Louis Art Museum, and St. Louis Science Center. Over 
the years, two additional institutions have been gathered into the district: the Missouri Botanical 
Garden and the Missouri History Museum. This city and county district collects about $68 million 
to support the five institutions. Admission to four of the five institutions is free (the Missouri Botan¬ 
ical Garden charges a nominal fee to nonmembers). Purchasing membership provides important 
benefits, such as discounts at the shops and free parking. 68 

Sales Tax Support for Museums 

Pennsylvania’s Allegheny Regional Asset District (RAD) provides an example of sales tax support for 
museums and other cultural organizations. 69 RAD is a special-purpose unit of local government that 
covers Allegheny County, which includes the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. Through Act 77, enacted 
in 1994, RAD receives tax revenues from a 1% Allegheny Sales and Use Tax, which it distributes 
among county and municipal governments and “regional assets.” 

RAD distributes one-half of tax revenues as unrestricted operating grants to “regional assets,” 
defined as civic, cultural, and recreational entities; libraries; parks; and sports facilities. 70 The RAD 
grants are administered and funding decisions made by RAD’s 7-member Board of Directors and 
27-member Advisory Board, and regional assets are required to submit annual funding requests. 
Several Allegheny County museums have received unrestricted operating grants since RAD’s 
enactment. The institutions receiving the largest amounts from RAD include the four Carnegie 
Museums (the Carnegie Museum of Art, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, the Carnegie 
Science Center, and the Andy Warhol Museum), the National Aviary, the Phipps Conservatory, and 
the Pittsburgh Zoo. From 1995 to 2007, these seven institutions received a combined total of 
$125,432,250, 13.9% of RAD’s total grants of $904,357,694 (see Table X.l). 71 


68 See http://mzdstl.org for information about the Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District. 

69 See www.radworkshere.org for information about the Allegheny Regional Asset District. 

The other half of tax revenues is distributed as 25% to the county government and 25% to municipal government 
and has been used for tax elimination, reduction, and relief and to fund regional projects and municipal functions such 
as public safety or road repair. 

Figures obtained from Allegheny Regional Asset District Web site, www.radworkshere.org/docs/GrantHistoryTotal.pdf. 


86 









■■■■■■■ 


Table X.l Allegheny Regional Asset District Funding History FY 1995-2007 


Museum 

RAD Grant 

Carnegie Museums 

$33,272,700 

National Aviary 

$14,044,200 

Phipps Conservatory 

$28,519,600 

Pittsburgh Zoo 

$49,595,750 

Total 

$125,432,250 


Source: Allegheny Regional Asset District, 2008. 

In another example of sales tax support, metropolitan Denver supports the ongoing operations 
of its science and cultural institutions with the sales and use tax revenues that it collects within 
a defined cultural district. In 1988, amid a regional economic downturn that diminished local 
and state revenues, taxpayers in seven contiguous Colorado counties voted to create a special tax 
district, the Science and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD). Voters in Denver County and six nearby 
suburban and rural counties imposed upon themselves a sales and use tax of 0.1%, or one cent 
on every $10. Given that the greater Denver metropolitan area has enjoyed a steady and growing 
consumer base, this tax has provided sustainable, unrestricted funding for scientific and cultural 
facilities in the Denver community for 20 years. In 2004, voters approved an extension of the 
SCFD until 2018. 72 

In FY 2007, the benefits of this special tax district translated into more than $40 million being 
portioned out among three tiers of institutions. By statute, Tier I comprises five large institutions 
serving visitors from all parts of the state and the country: the Denver Museum of Art, Denver 
Zoo, Denver Botanic Gardens, Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and Denver Center for the 
Performing Arts. These facilities receive 65.5% of the total SCFD revenues and are open free to 
the general public for a few days each year. The 11-member SCFD Board of Directors distributes 
funds to the five institutions according to their size: for 2008, the Denver Museum of Nature and 
Science, which in 2006 was visited by 1.6 million people, was budgeted to receive 16.38% of the 
funds collected in the SCFD; the Denver Zoo, 15.87%; Denver Art Museum, 13.65%; the Denver 
Center for the Performing Arts, 11.91%; and the Denver Botanic Gardens, 7.69%. 

Tier II comprises midsize institutions, serving mostly local and regional visitors. Organizations 
that wish to be considered Tier II facilities must apply each year to the SCFD Board of Directors, 
which determines applicant eligibility based on the criteria in the SCFD enabling legislation. For 
example, a Tier II organization must have been in operation for at least five years and must meet 
certain institutional requirements. One of the financial requirements is that, after 2006, organiza¬ 
tions applying for the first time must certify a threshold of $1.3 million in operating income. Tier II 
institutions receive 21% of the SCFD revenues broken down according to the size of the organiza- 


72 Information concerning the history and administrative procedures of the SCFD can be found at www.scfd.org. 


87 

















PUBLIC FUNDING FOR MUSEUMS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL 


tion. For example, in 2007 grants ranged from $977,754 for the Arvada Center for the Arts and 
Humanities to $ 74,186 for the Cherry Creek Arts Festival. In 2007, a total of $8,885,601 was 
distributed to the 27 Tier II institutions. 

County cultural councils appointed in each of the seven counties distribute the remaining 
13.5% of SCFD funds to the mostly small Tier III organizations. To qualify for Tier III funding, 
organizations must apply each year to the SCFD Board, must have been in operation for at least 
three years, and must have strong beneficial connections to the communities they serve. After 
the SCFD Board determines eligibility of the Tier III applicants, each county cultural council 
distributes to the organizations in its county an amount of money proportionate to the amount 
of taxes the county collected. In 2007, Arapahoe County (just south and east of Denver County) 
had $1,107,924 to distribute to the science and cultural organizations in the county. Of that 
amount, $1,009,051 was given out as general operating support, and $98,873 was awarded for 
projects. Among the 76 organizations receiving Arapahoe County Tier III funding in 2007, for 
example, Friends of Dinosaur Ridge received $11,000, and Plains Conservation Center received 
$33,036 in general operating support. 

In contrast to regions where local support for museums is strong, in Boston municipal sup¬ 
port for museums is very weak, resulting in a heavier reliance on state and federal support. In 
site visits in Massachusetts, many interview participants suggested that Boston’s cultural institu¬ 
tions have largely turned to private philanthropy and state and federal support. Thus, we may 
assume that there are other areas in the country where federal and state dollars, as opposed to 
local dollars, are the predominant sources of public support. 

Section Summary 

This section has presented key examples of strong support of museums at the local level across 
the United States. There is a strong consensus among museums about the importance of local 
support. Across museum types, the support of local government was found to contribute signifi¬ 
cantly to museum revenue; in four of nine types, local government contribution comprised more 
than 50% of museum revenues. 

Local funding is often grounded in the history, demography, economy, and politics of indi¬ 
vidual locations, resulting in diverse funding mechanisms and local perceptions of museums and 
their public value. Most of the cases described in this section can be seen as models of strong 
local support that provide dedicated funding to a variety of institutions. Yet, it is important to 
note that these cases all occur around urban areas and should not be viewed as representative 
of local support across the board. Support at the local level is highly varied across the country 
and may be conditioned by historical relationships between museums and local governments and 
long-standing traditions of local philanthropy. 

Public support for museums at the local level is an important contribution to the museum 
community; it can reflect a vote of confidence in the value that museums provide to local tax¬ 
payers. Local public dollars often aid museums in capital projects and general operating sup- 


88 






port, and most important, can provide support allocated through dedicated and regularly occurring 
mechanisms. Consideration of the funding picture at the local level is crucial to an analysis of the 
distribution of public support for museums and how local, state, and federal mechanisms may 
interact in the distribution of public monies. 








c 


Pictured: The Museums at 18 th and Vine in Kansas City, Mis¬ 
souri, include the American Jazz Museum and the Negro Leagues 
Baseball Museum. 


For some time, IMLS has been aware of the limits of current 
museum data collection efforts. 73 This lack of reliable data on 
the size and scope of the museum sector affects the museum 
research community and limits the ability of the agency to moni¬ 
tor grant program performance. 

For this study, the lack of a comprehensive list of museums 
required a significant amount of extra data processing in order to 
draw a reliable sample for survey research. To draw the Museum 
Public Finance Survey sample, the Ul team combined three data 
sources: the IMLS database, which contained about 17,500 
records with museum names and addresses but no designation 
of museum size or type; the American Association of Museums 
database, which contained about 10,000 records but lacked 
consistent type or budget amounts for each record; and the 
National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCOS), which contained 
the most complete information but was much more limited in 
scope. NCOS identified more than 5,000 museum records over 


7j See Institute of Museum and Library Services, (2005), Museum Data 
Collection Report and Analysis, prepared by McManis & Monsalve Associates 
(Manassas, Virginia), for a review of the status of data collection about muse¬ 
ums in works published from 1999 to 2004. 


90 























NEED FOR MORE RESEARCH 


a three-year period (2003-2005), but it reflects only tax-exempt organizations that are required by 
law to file IRS Form 990 tax forms. The three files were combined for sample selection and then 
cleaned once selected into the survey sample. In short, the lack of a consistent, reliable census of 
museums had a significant impact on the research process. 

Another important issue raised by this research is the need for greater standardization of data 
in the field and among funders and administrative data managers. While the American Association 
of Museums has done an exceptional job in standardizing terms for the Museum Financial Informa¬ 
tion Survey and in other areas, considerably more work is needed to be certain that the terms used 
inside and outside of the museum community are consistently applied. Standard definitions and 
descriptions of museum or institution type and museum services would allow for better accounting 
of the impact and public value of the museum sector. The lack of standardization has an impact on 
secondary analysis of data as well. Many large databases contain lists of museums, but there is no 
common definition of “museum.” 74 

The examination of museum finance relied heavily on administrative data collected at different 
levels of government. Some of the government sources were able to provide consistent museum- 
level data over time. Others were only able to provide highly aggregated information that did not 
allow for detailed analysis by institution or by varying geographic levels. Given the wide differences 
in support by institution type and place, much more work is needed to collect and manage detailed 
museum-level data. 

In addition to institutional information, information about the beneficiaries of museum services 
is vitally important. Very few systematic studies examine the breadth and depth of museum atten¬ 
dance or use of targeted museum programs and services for different museum types over time. 

The lack of this basic service information makes it very difficult to assess the human or social 
impact of museum services. As a result, studies of public value have tended to focus on economic 
benefits, which are based on a variety of economic indicators that may or may not reflect the mis¬ 
sion of individual museums and are only one of many measures, economic and social, of the value 
of these institutions. 

Finally, considerably more information is needed about the nature of museum support at all 
levels of government. Data on museum funding can be very difficult to obtain. Many government 
agencies either do not have the staff support to supply such information or do not manage agency 
records in a way that would allow analysts or the general public to collect museum-level data. 
Greater coordination across federal agencies would yield a better understanding of the nature of 
federal-level support. 


74 See www.aam-us.org/aboutmuseums/whatis.cfrn for a comparison of museum definitions among AAM, IMLS, and 
the International Council of Museums. 


91 







Appendix A. Research Methodology 

Introduction 

The Museum Public Funding Survey (MPFS) was designed to iden¬ 
tify the source of public support for museums of varying types, 
across different regions of the country. The survey was conducted 
between November 2007 and January 2008. More than 1,000 
institutions responded to the survey. A survey weight is needed to 
accurately analyze the data collected by the MPFS. This appendix 
describes the sampling and weighting procedures used to produce 
the survey weight that should be used to generate representative 
estimates of the various museum populations analyzed. 

Sampling 

While all museums were permitted to complete the study’s web 
survey, a stratified random sample of museums was selected to 
receive a personal invitation to participate. Museums that did 
not respond to the initial invitation were sent follow-up reminders 
emphasizing the importance of their participation in the study. 

The sampled museums were selected from three separate lists of 
museums. IMLS provided the largest list of museums; this list had 


92 


















APPENDIX A. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 


names and addresses for about 17,500 organizations. AAM provided a list of just under 10,000 
museums. Finally, using the NCOS database, we found about 5,600 museums that filed IRS Form 
990 tax returns. After removing duplicates across the three lists, we estimated the museum uni¬ 
verse to consist of approximately 25,000 organizations. In choosing the museums that would be 
invited to participate, we stratified by which list or lists they were on and by their location. 

Only the NCOS list identified the museum type for all records. The AAM list had assignments 
for a subset of institutions, and the IMLS list had no type assignments. Institution types that did 
not have a classification were postcoded based on key word searches of the institution names. 
Institutions that did not have a common museum type embedded in the name (e.g., the Smith 
Museum or New Carleton Museum), were categorized as undefined. Institution types were stan¬ 
dardized and grouped according to NCOS classifications, which resulted in seven categories of 
museums for this descriptive analysis. 

The product of this file merger process is substantially larger than the 17,500 institutions 
reported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services. However, records drawn from this pro¬ 
cess were not systematically verified. There are many problems in using this listing for a census of 
museums because the data were collected at widely varying points in time, using different proce¬ 
dures and operating definitions. In preparation for survey sampling, the Urban Institute employed a 
set of standard procedures to clean the file and identify gross data errors. Verification of all institu¬ 
tions in the newly combined list was beyond the scope of this study. 

Survey Weights 

The survey weights were designed to accomplish two goals. First, they allowed us to combine 
the data collected from the 448 respondents who responded without an invitation with the 562 
respondents who were invited and responded. 75 Second, the weights were corrected for the dif¬ 
ferential sampling by museum list, and a geographic poststratification was included so that each 
museum region was accurately represented in the final sample distribution. 

The first goal of combining invited respondents with other respondents involved modeling the 
two different groups to see how they differed. This modeling included testing both key demographic 
and substantive variables for differences between the two groups. The results of the modeling 
showed that there were only minor differences between the two groups, and no variable or char¬ 
acteristic was significantly different between the two groups. Given the similarity between the two 
groups, we felt it was acceptable to combine them as long as the volunteer (not-invited) group was 
given a weighting adjustment so that they matched the invited group in terms of museum regions 
and the museum list they appeared on. This was important, given that the invited respondents were 
stratified by location and their probability of selection varied depending on which museum list or 
lists they appeared on. 


75 Five respondents were from outside of the continental United States and were removed from the sample, resulting 
in a final respondent pool of 1,005. 


93 






APPENDIX A. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 


After combining the two groups of respondents, the second goal of making the sample more 
representative of the overall population of museums was straightforward. First we corrected for the 
differential sampling by museum list, and then we adjusted the survey weight so that the sample 
was proportional to the number of overall museums in each museum region. We did not post- 
stratify the final survey weight by anything other than region, given the limited information about 
the museums on both the AAM list and the IMLS museum list. 

Respondent Distribution 

Table AA.l shows the distribution of museum types that responded to the online survey. Survey 
respondents were able to choose from a list of institution types shown in the table, as well as a 
write-in option for “other.” These types were further condensed into the seven categories of muse¬ 
ums used in this descriptive analysis, based on the categories used for the Heritage Health Index. 
The numbers in Table AA.l show the unweighted distribution of museum types. Smaller categories 
of museums were aggregated into broader National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) classifica¬ 
tion for cross-tabular analysis and for comparability with data presented in the report. 

Table AA.l. Survey Respondents by Institution Type 


Museum Type* 

Number of 
Respondents 

Aquarium 

10 

Arboretum 

34 

Art Museum 

156 

Children’s/Youth Museum 

51 

Historic House or Site 

110 

History Museum 

270 

Historical Society 

109 

Natural History Museum 

41 

Nature Center 

10 

Planetarium 

3 

Science Technology Center 

40 

Zoo or Zoological Society 

44 

Specialty 

55 

General or Multidiscplinary 

50 

Transportation 

10 

Tribal 

12 

Total 

1,005 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 

*For the MPFS, respondents could choose from a list of museum types or specify a type in response to selecting 
“other.” For the purposes of analysis, the Urban Institute condensed the survey responses to museum type for this 
table. Types were further condensed for the primary survey analysis of the report to correspond with the categories 
employed by the Heritage Health Index. 


94 




























The distribution across regions is comparable to the distribution in the source data from which 
the sample was drawn. Here again, the unweighted distribution is listed to show readers how well 
the various museum regions were represented by survey respondents. The museums listed in Table 
AA.l include respondents from across the country, categorized by museum association region. 


Figure AA.l. Distribution of Museum Sample 



New England 

Mid-Atlantic 

Southeastern 

Mountain-Plains 

Association of 

Western 

Museum 

Association of 

Museum 

Museums 

Midwest 

Museums 

Association 

Museums 

Conference 

Association 

Museums 

Association 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008. 


Selection of 15-State Sample for State Arts Agency and 
State Humanities Council Funding 

IMLS staff selected the 15 states to comprise the sample. The first requirement was geographic 
distribution to account for regional differences. Next, based on staff experience with grantees 
and potential grantees, states were included because IMLS had awarded either a large number 
or a small number of grants to the state. Thus, the states in the sample represent a range of 
success in receiving IMLS awards. IMLS is grateful for the professional courtesy provided by the 
staff of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Assembly of State Arts 
Agencies in gathering the data regarding the State Humanities Council and State Arts Council 
support for museums. 


95 






































■■■■■■ 


mammmmmmammmmmammmmmmmmmmammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 




APPENDIX B: AAM MUSEUM REGIONS 


New England Museum 
Association (6) 
Connecticut 
Maine 

Massachusetts 
New Hampshire 
Rhode Island 
Vermont 

Mid-Atlantic Museum 
Association (5) 



Delaware 

Maryland 

New Jersey 

New York 

Pennsylvania 



Southeastern Museum 

Midwest Museum 

Western Museum 

Association (12) 

Association (8) 

Association (9) 

Alabama 

Indiana 

Alaska 

Arkansas 

Illinois 

Arizona 

Florida 

Iowa 

California 

Georgia 

Michigan 

Hawaii 

Kentucky 

Minnesota 

Idaho 

Louisiana 

Missouri 

Nevada 

Mississippi 

Ohio 

Oregon 

North Carolina 

Wisconsin 

Utah 

South Carolina 


Washington 

Tennessee 

Mountain-Plains Museum 


Virginia 

Association (10) 


West Virginia 

Colorado 



Kansas 
Montana 
Nebraska 
New Mexico 
North Dakota 
Oklahoma 
South Dakota 
Texas 
Wyoming 


96 






























APPENDIX C: FEDERAL FUNDING TO MUSEUMS, BY STATE 


List of Tables, all amounts expressed in constant 2006 dollars: 

Table AC.l. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000-2006 
Table AC.2. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000-2006 
Table AC.3. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000-2006 
Table AC.4. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000-2006 
Table AC.5. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000-2006 
Table AC.6. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000-2006 
Table AC.7. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000-2006 
Table AC.8. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000-2006 
Table AC.9. Number of Grants to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA and NEH, by State, FY 2000-2006 
Table AC. 10. Number of Earmarks to States by Fiscal Year, FY 2001-2006 
Table AC. 11. Total Federal Dollars to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2006 


97 




APPENDIX C: FEDERAL FUNDING TO MUSEUMS, BY STATE 


Table AC.l. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000-2006 


Total ($ 2006) 


2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

MTotal 2000-06 

Alabama 

275,309 

142,137 

201,695 

82,940 

187,657 

33,192 

219,543 

1,142,473 

Alaska 

139,220 

42,696 

514,167 

177,996 

28,936 

572,655 

149,129 

1,624,800 

Arizona 

677,849 

465,704 

434,385 

498,893 

174,586 

1,206,659 

257,700 

3,715,776 

Arkansas 

136,553 

98,055 

154,357 

65,979 

76,786 

14,488 

75,237 

621,455 

California 

1,816,062 

1,404,618 

2,814,103 

728,792 

2,416,220 

3,898,419 

2,601,215 

15,679,429 

Colorado 

382,534 

1,135,960 

792,563 

275,929 

1,022,479 

653,099 

688,209 

4,950,773 

Connecticut 

487,772 

176,653 

852,434 

495,548 

1,390,117 

983,679 

953,690 

5,339,894 

Delaware 

5,555 

180,263 

233,755 

83,445 

166,515 

76,537 

74,201 

820,271 

District of Columbia 

339,592 

589,611 

700,558 

547,127 

210,615 

132,397 

2,776,997 

5,296,898 

Florida 

1,570,889 

823,741 

737,992 

1,102,751 

642,389 

1,060,680 

512,422 

6,450,864 

Georgia 

223,141 

235,828 

138,526 

95,962 

314,721 

184,919 

564,577 

1,757,673 

Hawaii 

279,026 

72,858 

64,979 

111,840 

8,420 

76,822 

45,485 

659,431 

Idaho 

21,553 

43,317 

39,871 

101,029 

35,064 

2,400 

62,251 

305,485 

Illinois 

1,739,494 

999,760 

2,475,768 

2,056,966 

1,742,842 

2,809,351 

1,475,076 

13,299,258 

Indiana 

407,203 

9,443 

221,298 

196,665 

766,443 

73,920 

380,647 

2,055,619 

Iowa 

350,316 

379,208 

408,328 

124,779 

313,553 

127,614 

376,583 

2,080,381 

Kansas 

176,426 

267,563 

577,043 

51,728 

483,606 

21,605 

319,226 

1,897,198 

Kentucky 

246,341 

869,861 

254,129 

114,058 

568,604 

179,871 

137,316 

2,370,180 

Louisiana 

180,866 

219,298 

363,485 

242,883 

916,303 

16,888 

562,080 

2,501,804 

Maine 

142,915 

662,348 

1,355,331 

791,454 

607,997 

280,213 

425,323 

4,265,581 

Maryland 

726,960 

310,658 

524,739 

402,742 

376,507 

497,330 

418,659 

3,257,595 

Massachusetts 

1,725,333 

2,228,731 

1,108,927 

2,601,345 

3,888,064 

1,904,137 

1,955,302 

15,411,838 

Michigan 

845,712 

610,585 

776,194 

567,448 

860,382 

1,474,889 

1,070,240 

6,205,450 

Minnesota 

770,343 

404,720 

608,407 

340,262 

1,076,113 

741,099 

390,937 

4,331,881 

Mississippi 

137,754 

18,464 

133,208 

10,151 

68,888 

31,149 

104,567 

504,182 

' Missouri 

221,166 

895,834 

371,717 

285,929 

625,013 

460,286 

1,133,224 

3,993,170 

Montana 

341,749 

276,071 

252,434 

28,923 

564,788 

0 

298,582 

1,762,548 

Nebraska 

282,673 

462,517 

317,916 

21,962 

155,541 

417,752 

218,371 

1,876,733 

Nevada 

281,971 

10,996 

14,456 

169,547 

9,648 

248,978 

0 

735,595 

New Hampshire 

149,642 

270,804 

355,442 

212,632 

308,382 

191,976 

64,364 

1,553,243 

New Jersey 

37,584 

308,256 

14,635 

713,391 

33,068 

64,237 

183,828 

1,355,000 

New Mexico 

375,085 

569,605 

360,509 

563,177 

522,541 

210,047 

577,888 

3,178,852 

New York 

2,528,964 

3,413,021 

3,536,777 

2,886,932 

3,990,843 

5,301,152 

3,774,212 

25,431,901 

North Carolina 

734,546 

546,138 

1,073,554 

587,994 

363,712 

883,159 

701,353 

4,890,456 

North Dakota 

2,078 

15,743 

108,025 

32,603 

69,721 

2,400 

0 

230,570 

Ohio 

786,482 

855,897 

718,334 

303,182 

1,407,582 

687,232 

702,975 

5,461,685 

Oklahoma 

165,749 

506,998 

206,530 

207,530 

333,667 

384,902 

99,488 

1,904,863 

Oregon 

164,675 

191,733 

583,074 

662,134 

58,324 

326,355 

42,900 

2,029,196 

Pennsylvania 

2,016,218 

1,619,123 

916,840 

1,191,065 

1,664,912 

1,188,568 

1,877,594 

10,474,319 

Rhode Island 

159,307 

7,251 

270,922 

25,703 

197,042 

27,881 

30,327 

718,433 

South Carolina 

396,757 

144,586 

133,376 

116,977 

124,258 

227,639 

257,841 

1,401,435 

South Dakota 

58,155 

138,371 

137,354 

6,897 

175,042 

73,311 

219,105 

808,234 

Tennessee 

653,165 

403,035 

211,153 

463,526 

769,830 

1,197,601 

290,939 

3,989,249 

Texas 

1,178,256 

1,301,637 

666,695 

1,201,787 

1,202,536 

619,670 

373,087 

6,543,668 

Utah 

348,965 

3,381 

331,582 

170,460 

408,209 

356,100 

706,270 

2,324,967 

Vermont 

281,212 

438,515 

183,020 

135,104 

166,894 

234,377 

571,790 

2,010,912 

Virginia 

731,662 

787,483 

1,043,674 

275,742 

699,265 

690,659 

674,868 

4,903,352 

Washington 

339,024 

1,447,759 

279,511 

848,144 

813,279 

639,930 

446,264 

4,813,912 

West Virginia 

35,719 

5,401 

39,260 

81,371 

34,904 

265,493 

233,529 

695,677 

Wisconsin 

544,585 

707,278 

579,134 

443,414 

660,936 

349,205 

1,120,330 

4,404,882 

Wyoming 

131,707 

25,816 

18,614 

253,057 

319,152 

14,488 

309,679 

1,072,514 

U.S. Total 

26,751,817 

27,745,329 

29,210,781 

23,757,897 

34,022,898 

32,117,409 

31,505,420 

205,111,551 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars. 


98 



























Table AC.2. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000-2006 


Per 100 Population ($ 2006) 


2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 2000-06 

Alabama 

6L2| 

3.2 

4.5 | 

1.8 

4.2 

0.7 

4.8 

25.4 

Alaska 

22.2 

6.8 

80.3 

27.5 

4.4 

86.3 

22.3 

249.7 

Arizona 

13.1 1 

8.8 

8.0 

8.9 

3.0 

20.3 

4.2 

66.3 

Arkansas 

5.1 

3.6 

5.7 

2.4 

2.8 

0.5 

2.7 

22.9 

California 

5.3 

4.1 

8.0 

2.1 

6.7 

10.8 

7.1 

44.2 

Colorado 

8.8 

25.7 

17.6 

6.1 

22.2 

14.0 

14.5 

108.9 

Connecticut 

14.3 

5.1 

24.7 

14.2 

39.8 

28.1 

27.2 

153.4 

Delaware 

0.7 

22.7 

29.0 

10.2 

20.1 

9.1 

8.7 

100.5 

District of Columbia 

59.5 

102.1 

121.0 

94.7 

36.3 

22.7 

477.5 

914.0 

Florida 

9.8 

5.0 

4.4 

6.5 

3.7 

6.0 

2.8 

38.2 

Georgia 

2.7 

2.8 

1.6 

1.1 

3.5 

2.0 

6.0 

19.8 

Hawaii 

23.0 

6.0 

5.3 

9.0 

0.7 

6.0 

3.5 

53.5 

Idaho 

1.7 

3.3 

3.0 

7.4 

2.5 

0.2 

4.2 

22.2 

Illinois 

14.0 

00 

o 

19.7 

16.3 

13.7 

22.0 

11.5 

105.1 

Indiana 

6.7 

0.2 

3.6 

3.2 

12.3 

1.2 

6.0 

33.1 

Iowa 

12.0 

12.9 

13.9 

4.2 

10.6 

4.3 

12.6 

70.6 

Kansas 

6.6 

9.9 

21.3 

1.9 

17.7 

0.8 

11.5 

69.6 

Kentucky 

6.1 

21.4 

6.2 

2.8 

13.7 

4.3 

3.3 

57.8 

Louisiana 

4.0 

4.9 

8.1 

5.4 

20.4 

0.4 

13.1 

56.4 

Maine 

11.2 

51.5 

104.5 

60.5 

46.3 

21.3 

32.2 

327.4 

Maryland 

13.7 

5.8 

9.6 

7.3 

6.8 

8.9 

7.5 

59.6 

Massachusetts 

27.1 

34.8 

17.2 

40.4 

60.4 

29.6 

30.4 

239.9 

Michigan 

8.5 

6.1 

7.7 

5.6 

8.5 

14.6 

10.6 

61.7 

Minnesota 

15.6 

8.1 

12.1 

6.7 

21.1 

14.5 

7.6 

85.7 

Mississippi 

4.8 

0.6 

4.7 

0.4 

2.4 

1.1 

3.6 

17.5 

Missouri 

3.9 

15.9 

6.5 

5.0 

10.9 

7.9 

19.4 

69.6 

Montana 

37.8 

30.5 

27.7 

3.2 

61.0 

0.0 

31.6 

191.8 

Nebraska 

16.5 

26.9 

18.4 

1.3 

8.9 

23.8 

12.3 

108.1 

Nevada 

14.0 

0.5 

0.7 

7.6 

0.4 

10.3 

0.0 

33.5 

New Hampshire 

12.1 

21.5 

27.9 

16.5 

23.8 

14.7 

4.9 

121.4 

New Jersey 

0.4 

3.6 

0.2 

8.3 

0.4 

0.7 

2.1 

15.7 

New Mexico 

20.6 

31.1 

19.4 

30.0 

27.5 

10.9 

29.6 

169.1 

New York 

13.3 

17.9 

18.5 

15.0 

20.7 

27.4 

19.5 

132.3 

North Carolina 

9.1 

6.7 

12.9 

7.0 

4.3 

10.2 

7.9 

58.0 

North Dakota 

0.3 

2.5 

17.0 

5.2 

11.0 

0.4 

0.0 

36.3 

Ohio 

6.9 

7.5 

6.3 

2.7 

12.3 

6.0 

6.1 

47.8 

Oklahoma 

4.8 

14.6 

5.9 

5.9 

9.5 

10.9 

2.8 

54.4 

Oregon 

4.8 

5.5 

16.5 

18.6 

1.6 

9.0 

1.2 

57.2 

Pennsylvania 

16.4 

13.2 

7.4 

9.6 

13.5 

9.6 

15.1 

84.8 

Rhode Island 

15.2 

0.7 

25.4 

2.4 

18.3 

2.6 

2.8 

67.3 

South Carolina 

9.9 

3.6 

3.3 

2.8 

3.0 

5.4 

6.0 

33.8 

South Dakota 

7.7 

18.3 

18.1 

0.9 

22.7 

9.5 

28.0 

105.1 

Tennessee 

11.5 

7.0 

3.6 

7.9 

13.1 

20.1 

4.8 

68.1 

Texas 

5.6 

6.1 

3.1 

5.4 

5.3 

2.7 

1.6 

29.8 

Utah 

15.6 

0.1 

14.3 

7.2 

16.9 

14.3 

27.7 

96.0 

Vermont 

46.1 

71.5 

29.7 

21.8 

26.9 

37.7 

91.6 

325.4 

Virginia 

10.3 

10.9 

14.3 

3.7 

9.4 

9.1 

8.8 

66.6 

Washington 

5.7 

24.1 

4.6 

13.8 

13.1 

10.2 

7.0 

78.6 

West Virginia 

2.0 

0.3 

2.2 

4.5 

1.9 

14.6 

12.8 

38.4 

Wisconsin 

10.1 

13.1 

10.6 

8.1 

12.0 

6.3 

20.2 

80.5 

Wyoming 

26.7 

5.2 

3.7 

50.5 

63.1 

........... 28 

60.1 

212.2 

U.S. Total 

9.5 

9.7 

10.1 

8.2 

11.6 

10.8 

10.5 

70.5 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars. 


99 

































APPENDIX C: FEDERAL FUNDING TO MUSEUMS, BY STATE 


100 


Table AC.3. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000-2006 


Total ($ 2006) 


2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 2000-06 

Alabama 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

141,869 

141,869 

Alaska 

356,763 

9,343 

0 

54,761 

0 

624,918 

873,404 

1,919,189 

Arizona 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Arkansas 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

California 

8,949,497 

16,640,045 

6,955,442 

10,457,127 

13,167,289 

17,115,109 

9,277,123 

82,561,632 

Colorado 

106,302 

35,330 

162,490 

0 

936,888 

904,854 

307,525 

2,453,389 

Connecticut 

0 

0 

0 

646,057 

662,375 

0 

640,760 

1,949,192 

Delaware 

108,397 

0 

0 

0 

435,913 

0 

0 

544,310 

District of Columbia 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Florida 

351,426 

419,065 

298,082 

1,121,067 

2,573,439 

2,521,193 

558,270 

7,842,543 

Georgia 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Hawaii 

0 

433,664 

341,154 

141,500 

843,705 

162,269 

0 

1,922,293 

Idaho 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Illinois 

2,293,943 

1,579,833 

1,387,462 

2,487,397 

2,642,322 

3,438,468 

2,518,639 

16,348,063 

Indiana 

1,163,978 

179,103 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1,343,081 

Iowa 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Kansas 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Kentucky 

61,202 

59,509 

340,221 

0 

1,363,307 

0 

302,695 

2,126,934 

Louisiana 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Maine 

0 

0 

33,538 

0 

0 

0 

0 

33,538 

Maryland 

1,744,736 

109,262 

0 

0 

1,533,165 

0 

0 

3,387,163 

Massachusetts 

1,202,331 

2,027,021 

3,804,610 

3,880,259 

3,716,485 

6,775,723 

5,098,584 

26,505,013 

Michigan 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Minnesota 

3,895,776 

2,261,417 

3,249,123 

1,641,758 

2,156,232 

3,422,543 

1,015,166 

17,642,016 

Mississippi 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Missouri 

178,887 

227,505 

460,112 

0 

957,123 

560,877 

505,314 

2,889,818 

Montana 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Nebraska 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Nevada 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

New Hampshire 

824,780 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

824,780 

New Jersey 

0 

0 

281,408 

622,505 

912,847 

0 

346,193 

2,162,953 

New Mexico 

139,287 

196,471 

261,492 

144,859 

0 

0 

0 

742,108 

New York 

3,032,203 

8,734,598 

7,661,623 

6,132,676 

5,293,266 

9,762,261 

6,860,152 

47,476,779 

North Carolina 

308,285 

318,234 

290,181 

333,119 

1,239,091 

141,871 

94,356 

2,725,137 

North Dakota 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Ohio 

349,481 

462,083 

1,462,911 

393,670 

0 

0 

70,662 

2,738,807 

Oklahoma 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Oregon 

71,950 

813,738 

2,178,202 

2,390,528 

1,212,333 

0 

0 

6,666,751 

Pennsylvania 

1,583,258 

3,692,252 

1,795,456 

3,528,259 

2,191,608 

2,848,802 

1,687,392 

17,327,026 

Rhode Island 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

South Carolina 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

South Dakota 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tennessee 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Texas 

0 

687,571 

1,351,631 

1,801,327 

1,389,510 

841,504 

2,669,572 

8,741,114 

Utah 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Vermont 

1,416,418 

176,511 

609,290 

181,949 

681,742 

1,457,163 

0 

4,523,074 

Virginia 

4,397,380 

6,193,785 

5,340,656 

3,253,232 

1,671,454 

2,543,104 

979,298 

24,378,909 

Washington 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

216,325 

200,980 

417,305 

West Virginia 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Wisconsin 

103,555 

308,371 

319,139 

219,266 

0 

15,262 

0 

965,592 

Wyoming 

0 

0 

0 

0 

o 

0 

0 

0 

U.S. Total 

32,639,834 

45,564,711 

38,584,224 

39,431,315 

45,580,093 

53,352,248 

34,147,954 

289,300,379 


Source Urban Institute analysis of National Science Foundation data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in 
constant 2006 dollars. 


Note: Institutions used to normalize funding include natural history and natural science 
ogy museums, botanical gardens and arboretums, and zoos and aquariums. 


museums, science and technol- 




















































■■■■Hi 


■■■■HHHHHHHH 


■■■■■Hi 


Table AC.4. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000-2006 


Per 100 Population ($ 2006) 


2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 2000-06 

Alabama 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.1 

3.1 

Alaska 

56.9 

1.5 

0.0 

8.5 

o 

o 

94.2 

130.3 

291.4 

Arizona 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Arkansas 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

California 

26.3 

48.2 

19.9 

29.5 

36.7 

47.3 

25.4 

233.3 

Colorado 

2.5 

0.8 

3.6 

0.0 

20.4 

19.4 

6.5 

53.1 

Connecticut 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

18.6 

19.0 

0.0 

18.3 

55.8 

Delaware 

13.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

52.6 

0.0 

0.0 

66.4 

District of Columbia 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Florida 

2.2 

2.6 

1.8 

6.6 

14.8 

14.2 

3.1 

45.2 

Georgia 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Hawaii 

0.0 

35.5 

27.7 

11.4 

67.0 

12.7 

0.0 

154.3 

Idaho 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Illinois 

18.4 

12.6 

11.0 

19.7 

20.8 

26.9 

19.6 

129.1 

Indiana 

19.1 

2.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

22.0 

Iowa 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Kansas 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Kentucky 

1.5 

1.5 

8.3 

0.0 

32.9 

0.0 

7.2 

51.4 

Louisiana 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Maine 

0.0 

0.0 

2.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.6 

Maryland 

32.8 

2.0 

0.0 

0.0 

27.6 

0.0 

0.0 

62.5 

Massachusetts 

18.9 

31.6 

59.2 

60.3 

57.7 

105.3 

79.2 

412.2 

Michigan 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Minnesota 

79.0 

45.4 

64.7 

32.5 

42.3 

66.8 

19.6 

350.2 

Mississippi 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Missouri 

3.2 

4.0 

8.1 

0.0 

16.6 

9.7 

8.6 

50.3 

Montana 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Nebraska 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Nevada 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

New Hampshire 

66.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

66.5 

New Jersey 

0.0 

0.0 

3.3 

7.2 

10.5 

0.0 

4.0 

25.0 

New Mexico 

7.6 

10.7 

14.1 

7.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

40.2 

New York 

16.0 

45.7 

40.0 

31.9 

27.4 

50.5 

35.5 

247.1 

North Carolina 

3.8 

3.9 

3.5 

4.0 

14.5 

1.6 

1.1 

32.4 

North Dakota 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Ohio 

3.1 

4.1 

12.8 

3.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.6 

24.0 

Oklahoma 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Oregon 

2.1 

23.4 

61.8 

67.1 

33.8 

0.0 

0.0 

188.2 

Pennsylvania 

12.9 

30.0 

14.6 

28.6 

17.7 

23.0 

13.6 

140.3 

Rhode Island 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

South Carolina 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

South Dakota 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Tennessee 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Texas 

0.0 

3.2 

6.2 

8.1 

6.2 

3.7 

11.4 

38.8 

Utah 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Vermont 

232.2 

28.8 

98.9 

29.4 

109.8 

234.1 

0.0 

733.2 

Virginia 

61.9 

86.1 

73.3 

44.1 

22.4 

33.6 

12.8 

334.2 

Washington 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.4 

3.1 

6.6 

West Virginia 

0.0 

0.0 

O 

o 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Wisconsin 

1.9 

5.7 

5.9 

4.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

17.8 

Wyoming 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

U.S. Total 

11.6 

16.0 

13.4 

13.6 

15.5 

18.0 

11.4 

99.4 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of National Science Foundation data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in 
constant 2006 dollars. 

Note: Institutions used to normalize funding include natural history and natural science museums, science and technol¬ 
ogy museums, botanical gardens and arboretums, and zoos and aquariums. 


101 





































APPENDIX C: FEDERAL FUNDING TO MUSEUMS, BY STATE 


Table AC.5. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000-2006 


Total ($ 2006) 


2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 2000-06 

Alabama 

76,098 

46,672 

66,117 

65,739 

51,227 

87,742 

128,000 

521,594 

Alaska 

0 

0 

0 

16,435 

0 

0 

30,000 

46,435 

Arizona 

0 

45,534 

0 

0 

101,387 

0 

70,000 

216,921 

Arkansas 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

California 

577,171 

430,862 

549,665 

828,313 

540,019 

668,903 

615,000 

4,209,933 

Colorado 

117,073 

11,383 

50,428 

109,565 

32,017 

0 

10,000 

330,467 

Connecticut 

66,732 

85,375 

52,669 

0 

186,765 

25,806 

175,000 

592,348 

Delaware 

35,122 

25,043 

11,206 

0 

21,345 

61,935 

62,000 

216,652 

District of Columbia 

149,151 

113,834 

71,720 

177,496 

133,084 

320,000 

150,000 

1,115,284 

Florida 

40,976 

28,458 

11,206 

49,304 

53,362 

58,839 

60,000 

302,145 

Georgia 

193,171 

153,676 

212,918 

186,261 

85,379 

182,710 

300,000 

1,314,114 

Hawaii 

0 

0 

11,206 

82,174 

0 

0 

0 

93,380 

Idaho 

0 

34,150 

0 

0 

10,672 

15,484 

0 

60,306 

Illinois 

380,488 

365,407 

437,043 

471,130 

225,719 

178,581 

248,000 

2,306,368 

Indiana 

11,707 

34,150 

0 

10,957 

0 

15,484 

10,000 

82,298 

Iowa 

35,122 

34,150 

50,428 

21,913 

42,689 

72,258 

50,000 

306,561 

Kansas 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Kentucky 

17,561 

34,150 

14,568 

32,870 

12,807 

36,129 

35,000 

183,085 

Louisiana 

40,976 

17,075 

28,016 

10,957 

10,672 

10,323 

50,000 

168,018 

Maine 

0 

0 

52,669 

0 

45,891 

23,329 

45,000 

166,889 

Maryland 

76,098 

102,451 

49,307 

54,783 

42,689 

67,097 

45,000 

437,424 

Massachusetts 

134,634 

155,953 

128,872 

198,313 

150,480 

815,484 

591,500 

2,175,235 

Michigan 

0 

85,375 

73,961 

348,417 

101,387 

77,419 

250,000 

936,560 

Minnesota 

0 

0 

28,016 

78,887 

0 

61,935 

10,000 

178,838 

Mississippi 

0 

0 

30,257 

0 

60,832 

0 

65,000 

156,089 

Missouri 

76,098 

122,258 

63,875 

145,722 

192,102 

87,742 

25,000 

712,796 

Montana 

23,415 

0 

51,549 

0 

25,614 

25,806 

75,000 

201,383 

Nebraska 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10,672 

10,323 

0 

20,995 

Nevada 

11,707 

0 

31,377 

0 

0 

0 

10,000 

53,085 

New Hampshire 

49,171 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

49,171 

New Jersey 

70,244 

125,217 

11,206 

109,565 

58,698 

20,645 

65,000 

460,576 

New Mexico 

16,390 

58,055 

63,875 

35,061 

64,034 

201,290 

90,000 

528,706 

New York 

522,146 

1,075,731 

856,156 

1,109,348 

1,028,277 

1,378,581 

1,139,700 

7,109,939 

North Carolina 

16,976 

193,518 

100,856 

74,504 

121,664 

138,364 

55,000 

700,882 

North Dakota 

10,829 

56,917 

0 

21,913 

32,017 

56,774 

25,000 

203,450 

Ohio 

69,073 

73,992 

244,296 

76,696 

114,194 

36,129 

270,250 

884,629 

Oklahoma 

10,537 

193,518 

0 

21,913 

10,672 

67,097 

0 

303,737 

Oregon 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Pennsylvania 

340,098 

204,901 

448,249 

246,522 

294,556 

206,452 

343,000 

2,083,777 

Rhode Island 

9,366 

5,692 

11,206 

0 

0 

0 

0 

26,264 

South Carolina 

17,561 

0 

22,412 

0 

0 

0 

0 

39,973 

South Dakota 

0 

11,383 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

11,383 

Tennessee 

84,878 

125,217 

30,257 

32,870 

239,060 

10,323 

10,000 

532,604 

Texas 

14,049 

170,751 

168,093 

144,626 

283,884 

547,097 

227,000 

1,555,500 

Utah 

0 

0 

0 

26,296 

0 

0 

0 

26,296 

Vermont 

0 

11,383 

0 

0 

10,672 

0 

0 

22,056 

Virginia 

7,610 

76,269 

5,603 

71,217 

21,345 

10,323 

10,000 

202,366 

Washington 

282,146 

86,514 

112,062 

63,548 

106,723 

101,677 

100,000 

852,671 

West Virginia 

0 

11,383 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

11,383 

Wisconsin 

58,537 

17,075 

0 

69,026 

10,672 

10,323 

30,000 

195,633 

Wyoming 

0 

22,767 

0 

0 

0 

67,097 

0 

89,864 

U.S. Total 

3,642,907 

4,446,242 

4,151,346 

4,992,339 

4,533,279 

5,755,499 

5,474,450 

32,996,063 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of National Endowment for the Arts data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in 
constant 2006 dollars. 


Note: Institutions used to normalize grant totals include all art museums (NTEE code A51). 


102 





























Table AC. 6. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000-2006 


Per 100 Population ($ 2006) 


2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 2000-06 

Alabama 

1.7 

1.0 

1.5 

1.5 

1.1 

1.9 

2.8 

11.5 

Alaska 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.5 

0.0 

0.0 

4.5 

7.0 

Arizona 

0.0 

0.9 

0.0 

0.0 

1.8 

0.0 

1.1 

3.8 

Arkansas 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

California 

1.7 

1.2 

1.6 

2.3 

1.5 

1.9 

1.7 

11.9 

Colorado 

2.7 

0.3 

1.1 

2.4 

0.7 

0.0 

0.2 

7.4 

Connecticut 

2.0 

2.5 

1.5 

0.0 

5.3 

0.7 

5.0 

17.0 

Delaware 

4.5 

3.1 

1.4 

0.0 

2.6 

7.4 

7.3 

26.2 

District of Columbia 

26.1 

19.7 

12.4 

30.7 

23.0 

55.0 

25.8 

192.7 

Florida 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

1.8 

Georgia 

2.3 

1.8 

2.5 

2.1 

1.0 

2.0 

3.2 

14.9 

Hawaii 

0.0 

0.0 

0.9 

6.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

7.5 

Idaho 

0.0 

2.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.8 

1.1 

0.0 

4.4 

Illinois 

3.1 

2.9 

3.5 

3.7 

1.8 

1.4 

1.9 

18.3 

Indiana 

0.2 

0.6 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

0.2 

0.2 

1.3 

Iowa 

1.2 

1.2 

1.7 

0.7 

1.4 

2.4 

1.7 

10.4 

Kansas 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Kentucky 

0.4 

0.8 

0.4 

0.8 

0.3 

0.9 

0.8 

4.4 

Louisiana 

0.9 

0.4 

0.6 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

1.2 

3.8 

Maine 

0.0 

0.0 

4.1 

0.0 

3.5 

1.8 

3.4 

12.7 

Maryland 

1.4 

1.9 

0.9 

1.0 

0.8 

1.2 

0.8 

8.0 

Massachusetts 

2.1 

2.4 

2.0 

3.1 

2.3 

12.7 

9.2 

33.8 

Michigan 

0.0 

0.9 

0.7 

3.5 

1.0 

0.8 

2.5 

9.3 

Minnesota 

0.0 

0.0 

0.6 

1.6 

0.0 

1.2 

0.2 

3.5 

Mississippi 

0.0 

0.0 

1.1 

0.0 

2.1 

0.0 

2.2 

5.4 

Missouri 

1.4 

2.2 

1.1 

2.6 

3.3 

1.5 

0.4 

12.5 

Montana 

2.6 

0.0 

5.7 

0.0 

2.8 

2.8 

7.9 

21.7 

Nebraska 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.6 

0.6 

0.0 

1.2 

Nevada 

0.6 

0.0 

1.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

2.4 

New Hampshire 

4.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4.0 

New Jersey 

0.8 

1.5 

0.1 

1.3 

0.7 

0.2 

0.7 

5.4 

New Mexico 

0.9 

3.2 

3.4 

1.9 

3.4 

10.5 

4.6 

27.8 

New York 

2.7 

5.6 

4.5 

5.8 

5.3 

7.1 

5.9 

37.0 

North Carolina 

0.2 

2.4 

1.2 

0.9 

1.4 

1.6 

0.6 

8.3 

North Dakota 

1.7 

8.9 

0.0 

3.5 

5.0 

8.9 

3.9 

32.0 

Ohio 

0.6 

0.6 

2.1 

0.7 

1.0 

0.3 

2.4 

7.7 

Oklahoma 

0.3 

5.6 

0.0 

0.6 

0.3 

1.9 

0.0 

8.7 

Oregon 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Pennsylvania 

2.8 

1.7 

3.6 

2.0 

2.4 

1.7 

2.8 

16.9 

Rhode Island 

0.9 

0.5 

1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.5 

South Carolina 

0.4 

0.0 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.0 

South Dakota 

0.0 

1.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.5 

Tennessee 

1.5 

2.2 

0.5 

0.6 

4.1 

0.2 

0.2 

9.2 

Texas 

0.1 

0.8 

0.8 

0.7 

1.3 

2.4 

1.0 

6.9 

Utah 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.1 

Vermont 

0.0 

1.9 

0.0 

0.0 

1.7 

0.0 

0.0 

3.6 

Virginia 

0.1 

1.1 

0.1 

1.0 

0.3 

0.1 

0.1 

2.8 

Washington 

4.8 

1.4 

1.8 

1.0 

1.7 

1.6 

1.6 

14.0 

West Virginia 

0.0 

0.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.6 

Wisconsin 

1.1 

0.3 

0.0 

1.3 

0.2 

0.2 

0.5 

3.6 

Wyoming 

0.0 

4.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

13.2 

0.0 

17.8 

U.S. Total 

1.3 

1.6 

1.4 

1.7 

1.5 

1.9 

1.8 

11.3 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of National Endowment for the Arts data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in 


constant 2006 dollars. 








































wmmmm 


wmm 


APPENDIX C: FEDERAL FUNDING TO MUSEUMS, BY STATE 


104 


Table AC.7. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000-2006 


Total ($ 2006) 


2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 2000-06 

Alabama 

29,268 

10,060 

11,195 

243,192 

53,338 

5,161 

0 

352,214 

Alaska 

35,122 

52,364 

348,619 

763,901 

543,627 

41,290 

45,000 

1,829,923 

Arizona 

47,981 

933,199 

25,082 

308,705 

15,992 

0 

93,790 

1,424,750 

Arkansas 

0 

0 

0 

0 

66,702 

0 

4,982 

71,684 

California 

1,053,142 

375,119 

2,005,438 

3,365,415 

1,486,264 

1,555,097 

326,218 

10,166,693 

Colorado 

27,118 

307,352 

22,178 

111,757 

24,858 

60,387 

388,554 

942,203 

Connecticut 

225,817 

1,149,517 

32,812 

0 

1,722,060 

71,143 

18,543 

3,219,892 

Delaware 

0 

284,585 

5,603 

151,200 

180,619 

0 

284,551 

906,558 

District of Columbia 

295,047 

784,999 

33,585 

65,733 

220,375 

1,238,754 

393,120 

3,031,612 

Florida 

56,809 

9,904 

571,518 

1,127,903 

58,698 

61,935 

712,030 

2,598,796 

Georgia 

11,707 

0 

16,545 

0 

639,824 

15,484 

679,920 

1,363,480 

Hawaii 

0 

11,383 

11,206 

10,957 

42,689 

275,097 

0 

351,332 

Idaho 

10,409 

11,379 

5,603 

0 

0 

5,161 

0 

32,552 

Illinois 

946,796 

663,081 

403,349 

1,076,478 

117,335 

376,732 

390,956 

3,974,727 

Indiana 

22,628 

0 

11,206 

394,435 

0 

251,561 

280,000 

959,830 

Iowa 

367,785 

11,286 

5,076 

10,957 

325,506 

229,796 

55,000 

1,005,405 

Kansas 

0 

5,416 

0 

0 

57,011 

0 

0 

62,428 

Kentucky 

5,854 

5,692 

126,979 

0 

5,336 

0 

9,989 

153,849 

Louisiana 

7,885 

6,864 

0 

547,826 

0 

0 

30,000 

592,575 

Maine 

134,382 

136,452 

26,646 

509,603 

909,234 

10,323 

858,530 

2,585,170 

Maryland 

267,579 

439,792 

595,452 

1,106,609 

234,620 

120,258 

159,776 

2,924,086 

Massachusetts 

1,928,046 

1,723,502 

78,668 

136,957 

1,133,039 

213,793 

2,008,582 

7,222,587 

Michigan 

367,630 

482,721 

476,954 

1,051,059 

710,440 

46,452 

283,000 

3,418,255 

Minnesota 

41,505 

626,948 

62,439 

0 

876,941 

302,865 

787,153 

2,697,849 

Mississippi 

11,707 

512,253 

156,887 

0 

205,965 

0 

319,997 

1,206,809 

Missouri 

48,131 

134,527 

4,841 

2,738,456 

548,790 

680,885 

19,584 

4,175,213 

Montana 

17,561 

85,375 

21,673 

136,957 

5,336 

25,795 

5,000 

297,697 

Nebraska 

0 

0 

5,603 

602,609 

0 

0 

0 

608,212 

Nevada 

49,729 

11,346 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

61,075 

New Hampshire 

267,842 

165,628 

644,345 

10,957 

5,289 

5,161 

13,701 

1,112,923 

New Jersey 

0 

11,383 

67,084 

0 

48,025 

293,161 

329,871 

749,525 

New Mexico 

5,854 

694,827 

1,173,814 

123,979 

106,658 

5,161 

709,000 

2,819,292 

New York 

2,811,242 

1,069,605 

1,147,636 

4,033,264 

3,113,438 

2,405,572 

1,011,986 

15,592,743 

North Carolina 

368,981 

136,601 

2,858 

328,696 

547,383 

184,025 

23,680 

1,592,222 

North Dakota 

36,665 

17,075 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

53,740 

Ohio 

999,024 

705,822 

62,309 

65,739 

373,531 

61,935 

345,674 

2,614,034 

Oklahoma 

93,552 

10,017 

309,081 

0 

5,336 

123,871 

12,790 

554,648 

Oregon 

7,919 

57,945 

11,147 

0 

10,672 

0 

8,713 

96,396 

Pennsylvania 

376,642 

114,239 

1,251,348 

876,522 

589,058 

2,072,025 

37,225 

5,317,059 

Rhode Island 

590,972 

0 

19,807 

10,957 

5,336 

0 

3,533 

630,605 

South Carolina 

3,080 

0 

0 

0 

5,303 

0 

9,956 

18,339 

South Dakota 

0 

5,692 

50,868 

0 

5,336 

5,161 

4,880 

71,938 

Tennessee 

0 

21,742 

0 

51,097 

244,183 

25,806 

13,196 

356,024 

Texas 

89,831 

878,142 

767,433 

43,826 

643,380 

41,290 

13,405 

2,477,307 

Utah 

0 

17,075 

0 

0 

3,093 

0 

14,857 

35,025 

Vermont 

9,525 

25,614 

234,620 

0 

10,672 

24,258 

849,034 

1,153,724 

Virginia 

52,863 

1,565,787 

425,699 

887,478 

1,504,796 

524,467 

324,995 

5,286,085 

Washington 

320,651 

7,413 

340,669 

219,130 

320,169 

15,484 

84,999 

1,308,515 

West Virginia 

4,683 

0 

0 

10,957 

0 

10,323 

0 

25,962 

Wisconsin 

10,528 

627,040 

135,592 

0 

62,639 

51,613 

360,126 

1,247,538 

Wyoming 

23,360 

11,383 

33,619 

0 

16,008 

10,323 

9,927 

104,620 

U.S. Total 

12,088,011 

14,918,144 

11,743,085 

21,139,741 

17,804,908 

11,447,606 

12,335,823 

101,477,317 


Sour c e: Urban Institute analysis of National Endowment for the Humanities data, 2008. All amounts are expressed in 
constant 2006 dollars. 


Notes: Institutions used to normalize funding include art museums, children’s museums, history museums, and histori¬ 
cal societies. Grant data are reported for the year of approval, not the year in which funds were distributed. Grants 
distributed across multiple years will appear only in the year authorized by NEH. 
























































MHHBMMM—MHBB—BMMMMWMBMMaa BMMWwftnnnii'- | TT 111!IIHI |! i r-"^ 


Table AC.8. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000-2006 




Per 100 Population ($ 2006) 


2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 2000-06 

Alabama 

0.7 

0.2 

0.3 

5.4 

1.2 

0.1 

0.0 

7.8 

Alaska 

5.6 

8.3 

54.4 

117.9 

82.8 

6.2 

6.7 

281.9 

Arizona 

0.9 

17.6 

0.5 

5.5 

0.3 

0.0 

1.5 

26.3 

Arkansas 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.4 

0.0 

0.2 

2.6 

California 

3.1 

1.1 

5.7 

9.5 

4.1 

4.3 

0.9 

28.7 

Colorado 

0.6 

6.9 

0.5 

2.5 

0.5 

1.3 

8.2 

20.5 

Connecticut 

6.6 

33.5 

0.9 

0.0 

49.3 

2.0 

0.5 

92.9 

Delaware 

0.0 

35.8 

0.7 

18.5 

21.8 

0.0 

33.3 

110.1 

District of Columbia 

51.7 

136.0 

5.8 

11.4 

38.0 

212.8 

67.6 

523.3 

Florida 

0.4 

0.1 

3.4 

6.6 

0.3 

0.3 

3.9 

15.1 

Georgia 

0.1 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

7.2 

0.2 

7.3 

14.9 

Hawaii 

0.0 

0.9 

0.9 

0.9 

3.4 

21.6 

0.0 

27.7 

Idaho 

0.8 

0.9 

0.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

0.0 

2.4 

Illinois 

7.6 

5.3 

3.2 

8.5 

0.9 

3.0 

3.0 

31.5 

Indiana 

0.4 

0.0 

0.2 

6.4 

0.0 

4.0 

4.4 

15.4 

Iowa 

12.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.4 

11.0 

7.7 

1.8 

34.1 

Kansas 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

2.1 

0.0 

0.0 

2.3 

Kentucky 

0.1 

0.1 

3.1 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.2 

3.8 

Louisiana 

0.2 

0.2 

o 

o 

12.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.7 

13.3 

Maine 

10.5 

10.6 

2.1 

39.0 

69.2 

0.8 

65.0 

197.1 

Maryland 

5.0 

8.2 

10.9 

20.1 

4.2 

2.2 

2.8 

53.5 

Massachusetts 

30.3 

26.9 

1.2 

2.1 

17.6 

3.3 

31.2 

112.7 

Michigan 

3.7 

4.8 

4.8 

10.4 

7.0 

0.5 

2.8 

34.0 

Minnesota 

0.8 

12.6 

1.2 

0.0 

17.2 

5.9 

15.2 

53.0 

Mississippi 

0.4 

17.9 

5.5 

0.0 

7.1 

0.0 

11.0 

41.9 

Missouri 

0.9 

2.4 

0.1 

47.9 

9.5 

11.7 

0.3 

72.9 

Montana 

1.9 

9.4 

2.4 

14.9 

0.6 

2.8 

0.5 

32.5 

Nebraska 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

34.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

35.0 

Nevada 

2.5 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.0 

New Hampshire 

21.6 

13.2 

50.6 

0.9 

0.4 

0.4 

1.0 

88.0 

New Jersey 

0.0 

0.1 

0.8 

0.0 

0.6 

3.4 

3.8 

8.6 

New Mexico 

0.3 

37.9 

63.3 

6.6 

5.6 

0.3 

36.3 

150.3 

New York 

14.8 

5.6 

6.0 

21.0 

16.1 

12.5 

5.2 

81.2 

North Carolina 

4.6 

1.7 

0.0 

3.9 

6.4 

2.1 

0.3 

19.0 

North Dakota 

5.7 

2.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

8.4 

Ohio 

8.8 

6.2 

0.5 

0.6 

3.3 

0.5 

3.0 

22.9 

Oklahoma 

2.7 

0.3 

8.9 

0.0 

0.2 

3.5 

0.4 

15.9 

Oregon 

0.2 

1.7 

0.3 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

0.2 

2.7 

Pennsylvania 

3.1 

0.9 

10.2 

7.1 

4.8 

16.7 

0.3 

43.0 

Rhode Island 

56.2 

0.0 

1.9 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

0.3 

59.9 

South Carolina 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

South Dakota 

0.0 

0.8 

6.7 

0.0 

0.7 

0.7 

0.6 

9.4 

Tennessee 

0.0 

0.4 

0.0 

0.9 

4.1 

0.4 

0.2 

6.1 

Texas 

0.4 

4.1 

3.5 

0.2 

2.9 

0.2 

0.1 

11.4 

Utah 

0.0 

0.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.6 

1.5 

Vermont 

1.6 

4.2 

38.1 

0.0 

1.7 

3.9 

136.1 

185.5 

Virginia 

0.7 

21.8 

5.8 

12.0 

20.1 

6.9 

4.3 

71.7 

Washington 

5.4 

0.1 

5.6 

3.6 

5.2 

0.2 

1.3 

21.5 

West Virginia 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.6 

0.0 

0.6 

0.0 

1.4 

Wisconsin 

0.2 

11.6 

2.5 

0.0 

1.1 

0.9 

6.5 

22.8 

Wyoming 

4.7 

2.3 

6.7 

0.0 

3.2 

2.0 

1.9 

20.9 

U.S. Total 

4.3 

5.2 

4.1 

7.3 

6.1 

3.9 

4.1 

34.9 


Sourcs: Urban Institute analysis of National Endowmsnt for tho Humanities data, 2008. All amounts are expressed in 
constant 2006 dollars. 


Notes: Institutions used to normalize funding include art museums, children s museums, history museums, and 
historical societies. Grant data are reported for the year of approval, not the year in which funds were distributed. 
Grants distributed across multiple years will appear only in the year authorized by NEH. 


105 






































■■ 

APPENDIX C: FEDERAL FUNDING TO MUSEUMS, BY STATE 


Table AC.9. Number of Grants to Museums from I MLS, NSF, NEA, and NEH, by State, FY 2000-2001 



IMLS 

NSF 

NEH 

NEA 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Total 2000-06 

Alabama 

36 

1 

11 

17 

Alaska 

31 

5 

13 

3 

Arizona 

47 

0 

17 

6 

Arkansas 

21 

0 

2 

0 

California 

246 

55 

61 

101 

Colorado 

80 

7 

28 

7 

Connecticut 

87 

3 

22 

18 

Delaware 

17 

2 

9 

8 

District of Columbia 

37 

0 

23 

19 

Florida 

136 

13 

30 

17 

Georgia 

50 

0 

12 

10 

Hawaii 

19 

5 

6 

2 

Idaho 

23 

0 

6 

3 

Illinois 

134 

18 

26 

33 

Indiana 

46 

2 

10 

5 

Iowa 

45 

0 

14 

8 

Kansas 

52 

0 

2 

0 

Kentucky 

49 

5 

7 

9 

Louisiana 

35 

0 

6 

10 

Maine 

63 

1 

24 

5 

Maryland 

82 

3 

25 

14 

Massachusetts 

186 

15 

75 

34 

Michigan 

89 

0 

24 

15 

Minnesota 

69 

7 

25 

5 

Mississippi 

20 

0 

7 

4 

Missouri 

66 

6 

20 

17 

Montana 

32 

0 

16 

9 

Nebraska 

47 

0 

2 

2 

Nevada 

18 

0 

10 

3 

New Hampshire 

54 

1 

21 

2 

New Jersey 

36 

4 

13 

13 

New Mexico 

55 

4 

20 

18 

New York 

348 

35 

141 

146 

North Carolina 

100 

9 

19 

25 

North Dakota 

14 

0 

7 

7 

Ohio 

104 

9 

35 

20 

Oklahoma 

58 

0 

14 

8 

Oregon 

50 

6 

8 

0 

Pennsylvania 

191 

26 

38 

45 

Rhode Island 

23 

0 

8 

3 

South Carolina 

27 

0 

3 

4 

South Dakota 

29 

0 

6 

1 

Tennessee 

60 

0 

12 

13 

Texas 

129 

13 

35 

50 

Utah 

38 

0 

5 

1 

Vermont 

33 

6 

24 

2 

Virginia 

118 

12 

28 

10 

Washington 

69 

2 

16 

23 

West Virginia 

15 

0 

3 

1 

Wisconsin 

74 

5 

15 

11 

Wyoming 

22 

0 

16 

4 

U.S. Total 

3,523 

280 

1,023 

793 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of administrative records from IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA, 2008. 


106 





















Table AC. 10. Number of Earmarks to States by Fiscal Year, FY 2001-2006 




Number of Earmarks per State 


2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Total 2001-06 

* 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

Alaska 

3 

3 

8 

7 

6 

0 

27 

Alabama 

3 

6 

5 

8 

6 

4 

32 

Arkansas 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

3 

Arizona 

1 

1 

0 

2 

4 

1 

9 

California 

11 

17 

22 

17 

20 

14 

101 

Colorado 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

2 

11 

Connecticut 

3 

5 

3 

3 

8 

5 

27 

District of Columbia 

4 

5 

10 

7 

10 

5 

41 

Delaware 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

Florida 

2 

3 

3 

10 

12 

5 

35 

Georgia 

6 

3 

10 

5 

9 

3 

36 

Hawaii 

2 

5 

2 

2 

2 

1 

14 

Iowa 

4 

5 

8 

6 

7 

2 

32 

Idaho 

1 

1 

2 

4 

2 

0 

10 

Illinois 

5 

4 

9 

8 

11 

10 

47 

Indiana 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

4 

Kansas 

2 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

6 

Kentucky 

4 

3 

3 

4 

5 

0 

19 

Louisiana 

2 

2 

3 

0 

4 

1 

12 

Massachusetts 

6 

3 

5 

1 

5 

2 

22 

Maryland 

4 

0 

3 

4 

2 

1 

14 

Maine 

1 

3 

3 

0 

2 

2 

11 

Michigan 

2 

3 

1 

7 

5 

4 

22 

Minnesota 

1 

0 

3 

2 

1 

1 

8 

Missouri 

4 

2 

4 

5 

6 

5 

26 

Mississippi 

3 

2 

2 

4 

5 

4 

20 

Montana 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

3 

7 

North Carolina 

3 

4 

5 

3 

8 

7 

30 

North Dakota 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

5 

Nebraska 

1 

0 

0 

1 

2 

3 

7 

New Hampshire 

1 

0 

0 

1 

4 

1 

7 

New Jersey 

6 

0 

0 

0 

6 

2 

14 

New Mexico 

1 

0 

3 

2 

0 

2 

8 

Nevada 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

3 

New York 

16 

23 

22 

15 

23 

8 

107 

Ohio 

2 

10 

11 

13 

19 

3 

58 

Oklahoma 

0 

0 

4 

5 

2 

2 

13 

Oregon 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

1 

14 

Pennsylvania 

13 

17 

24 

21 

31 

6 

112 

Rhode Island 

3 

4 

2 

4 

1 

0 

14 

South Carolina 

2 

2 

0 

3 

1 

1 

9 

South Dakota 

0 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

6 

Tennessee 

2 

3 

3 

6 

10 

2 

26 

Texas 

3 

2 

8 

7 

11 

2 

33 

Utah 

2 

0 

2 

1 

1 

4 

10 

Virginia 

5 

7 

10 

12 

14 

9 

57 

Vermont 

4 

6 

1 

0 

1 

1 

13 

Washington 

4 

3 

6 

5 

6 

4 

28 

Wisconsin 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

0 

10 

West Virginia 

5 

4 

4 

3 

4 

4 

24 

Wyoming 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

Total 

156 

174 

227 

220 

291 

140 

1,208 


* Combined earmark to HI and AK. Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008. 































APPENDIX C: FEDERAL FUNDING TO MUSEUMS BY STATES 


Table AC. 11. Total Federal Dollars to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2006 


Per 100 Population ($ 2006) 


IMLS 

NSF 

NEA 

NEH 

Earmark 

Alabama 

4.8 

3.1 

2.8 

0.0 

78.3 

Alaska 

22.3 

130.3 

4.5 

6.7 

0 

Arizona 

4.2 

0 

1.1 

1.5 

0 

Arkansas 

2.7 

0 

0 

0.2 

0 

California 

7.1 

25.4 

1.7 

0.9 

21.1 

Colorado 

14.5 

6.5 

0.2 

8.2 

5.3 

Connecticut 

27.2 

18.3 

5 

0.5 

134.1 

Delaware 

8.7 

0 

7.3 

33.3 

0 

District of Columbia 

477.5 

0 

25.8 

67.6 

252.8 

Florida 

2.8 

3.1 

0.3 

3.9 

7.2 

Georgia 

6 

0 

3.2 

7.3 

7.2 

Hawaii 

3.5 

0 

0 

0.0 

0 

Idaho 

4.2 

0 

0 

0.0 

o 

Illinois 

11.5 

19.6 

1.9 

3.0 

22.4 

Indiana 

6 

0 

0.2 

4.4 

40.9 

Iowa 

12.6 

0 

1.7 

1.8 

12.2 

Kansas 

11.5 

0 

0 

0.0 

0 

Kentucky 

3.3 

7.2 

0.8 

0.2 

0 

Louisiana 

13.1 

0 

1.2 

0.7 

11.7 

Maine 

32.2 

0 

3.4 

65.0 

30.3 

Maryland 

7.5 

0 

0.8 

2.8 

3.6 

Massachusetts 

30.4 

79.2 

9.2 

31.2 

3.9 

Michigan 

10.6 

0 

2.5 

2.8 

18.3 

Minnesota 

7.6 

19.6 

0.2 

15.2 

4.8 

Mississippi 

3.6 

0 

2.2 

11.0 

101.4 

Missouri 

19.4 

8.6 

0.4 

0.3 

119 

Montana 

31.6 

0 

7.9 

0.5 

47.6 

Nebraska 

12.3 

0 

0 

0.0 

296.3 

Nevada 

0 

0 

0.4 

0.0 

0 

New Hampshire 

4.9 

0 

0 

1.0 

114.1 

New Jersey 

2.1 

4 

0.7 

3.8 

3.9 

New Mexico 

29.6 

0 

4.6 

36.3 

10.2 

New York 

19.5 

35.5 

5.9 

5.2 

14.6 

North Carolina 

7.9 

1.1 

0.6 

0.3 

22.9 

North Dakota 

0 

0 

3.9 

0.0 

0 

Ohio 

6.1 

0.6 

2.4 

3.0 

9.4 

Oklahoma 

2.8 

0 

0 

0.4 

11.7 

Oregon 

1.2 

0 

0 

0.2 

10.8 

Pennsylvania 

15.1 

13.6 

2.8 

0.3 

14.5 

Rhode Island 

2.8 

0 

0 

0.3 

0 

South Carolina 

6 

0 

0 

0.2 

4.6 

South Dakota 

28 

0 

0 

0.6 

25.6 

Tennessee 

4.8 

0 

0.2 

0.2 

5 

Texas 

1.6 

11.4 

1 

0.1 

2.3 

Utah 

27.7 

0 

0 

0.6 

70.6 

Vermont 

91.6 

0 

0 

136.1 

0 

Virginia 

8.8 

12.8 

0.1 

4.3 

16.4 

Washington 

7 

3.1 

1.6 

1.3 

26.6 

West Virginia 

12.8 

0 

0 

0.0 

227.7 

Wisconsin 

20.2 

0 

0.5 

6.5 

0 

Wyoming 

60.1 

0 

0 

1.9 

68 

U.S. Total 

10.5 

11.4 

1.8 

4.1 

21.9 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of administrative data provided by IMLS, NSF, NEA, NEH, and analysis of Citizens 
Against Government Waste data, 2008. 

Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars. 


108 
























































APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 



Research Method for Gathering State Profiles 

State profiles were produced using information gathered through background research of agency 
Web sites and publicly available budget information; site visits to agencies, associations, and muse¬ 
ums in each of the states; as well as in-depth interviews with approximately nine public arts admin¬ 
istrators, museum professionals, and cultural policymakers in each of the states. In the interviews, 
the investigators asked about the kinds of mechanisms used to deliver state dollars to museums, 
whether and how the state’s public cultural agencies work together, and how many dollars they 
control. The investigators also interviewed national funders and leaders of national service organi¬ 
zations to understand how federal- and state-level systems for distributing resources to museums 
function. (See appendix E for a complete list of those interviewed.) 

After gathering data on state systems of support for the cultural sector, the Urban Institute 
investigators quantified the dollars delivered through the systems in eight states: Illinois, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. 76 

Each profile includes the following information: 

• an analysis of general attitudes toward museums, their public roles, and the effectiveness 
and appropriateness of government funding in supporting museums in their public roles; 

• a breakdown of support received by museums in the state from IMLS, NEA, NEH, NSF, and 
federal earmarks; 

• a portrait of the state structure for delivering cultural services, including museum services, 
to the public and for supporting museums so that they can deliver museum services; and 

• an accounting of total dollars in this structure and of the state’s share of these dollars. 

Each state’s public cultural sector includes some or all of these state agencies: 

• The State Arts Agency 

• The State Humanities Council 

• The State Historic Preservation Office 

• The State Museum/Museum Commission 

• Public museums 

• The State Library 

• The State Archive 

• Any umbrella cultural agency 

• Any special agencies/offices 


76 


The financial data collection process that occurred in this study at the state level is illustrative of the lack of 
coordination and systematization across state agencies in terms of financial record-keeping and reporting. State-level 
budgetary information on cultural spending ranged from being readily and freely available in some agencies to being 
difficult to disentangle from budget documents and complex record-keeping methods, to simply not being accounted for 
at all. Urban Institute researchers made every effort to gather as much information as possible on financial data at the 
state level in spite of these challenges and express their gratitude to the agencies for the work required to provide this 

information. 


109 







APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


The profiles are presented in three groups: large, medium, and small. Because population size 
is highly—though not directly—correlated with the size of the museum sector and because state 
expenditures are scaled to fit population size, it is important to keep differences in size in mind 
when comparing the eight states. Size classifications refer to both the population of the state and 
its total general fund expenditures in FY 2006. Large states in this study are Illinois, Pennsylvania, 
and Michigan. Medium-size states are Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington. Small states are 
New Mexico and Maine. 

Large States—Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan 

ILLINOIS 

Although the public view of museums in Illinois is dominated by a cluster of internationally 
renowned institutions in and around Chicago, a significant number of large local and regional 
museums can be found across the state. The museum community in the state argues forcefully for 
the public value of their institutions, highlighting them as vital community supports for both educa¬ 
tion and tourism. Respondents highlighted a number of innovative education and access projects as 
being a direct result of public support. Those projects included partnerships with schools to provide 
updated information technology, teacher training to incorporate Illinois museum Web resources into 
the classrooms, and cooperative agreements with local libraries to provide patrons with free access 
passes to local museums. 

While members of the museum community see public support as important to their institutions, 
there appears to be a significant dividing line between museums located on public land and those 
that are not. In Illinois, the relationship between public lands and museums dates back to the 
Columbian Exhibition of 1893. By all accounts, state and city support for the campus of museums 
that developed close to Chicago dates back to that time. This historic relationship appears to have 
shaped the way the state sees and supports museums. For example, for some funding programs, 
the term “public museum” is used describe any museum on government land, regardless of 
whether the institution’s formal governance structure is tied to state or local governments. 

I. Federal funding for museums in Illinois 

Illinois institutions are highly competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. Table 
AD.l lists the amount of funding that Illinois museums received from federal agencies between 
2000 and 2006. For each of the four federal agencies, Illinois ranked seventh or better in terms 
of total dollars received over the seven years. Illinois ranks fourth in the country in terms of total 
federal dollars funding museums in the state. 


110 






Table AD. 1. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000-2006: Illinois 


Illinois 

2000-2006 Rank 

IMLS 

$13,299,258 

-- 

4 

NSF 

$16,348,063 

7 

NEH 

$3,974,727 

7 

NEA 

$2,306,368 

3 

Total 

$35,928,416 

4 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008. 

Illinois received $23,927,376 in total federal earmarks from 2001 to 2006, ranking fifth in the 
country for the total amount of earmark support received during this period. 

II. State-level capacities 

The public cultural sector in Illinois is structured around several large, independent agencies. Table 
AD.2 lists these agencies, along with their state allocations and total revenues in FY 2007. The total 
of their combined budgets was more than $125 million, or just about $9.75 per capita. The propor¬ 
tion of dollars contributed by the state was more than $116 million, or just over $9 per capita. 

The Historic Preservation Agency runs the Abraham Lincoln Museum and Library, which had a 
budget of more than $14 million in FY 2007. The Lincoln Museum and Library is supported through 
a private foundation that gave $746,203, as well as documents and artifacts worth $25 million 
in FY 2007. In FY 2007, the Historic Preservation Agency reportedly administered an additional 
$16,491,825 in funds earmarked for capital improvements to museums. The Arts Council budget 
reflects $6,229,700 in line items administered to cultural institutions, including museums. 


Table AD. 2. Illinois Cultural Agency Budgets: Total Budget and State Appropriation, FY 2007 


Agency 

Total Budget FY 2007 

State Appropriation FY 2007 

Difference $ 

Difference % 

Arts Council 

$19,582,300 

$18,807,300 

$775,000 

3.96% 

Historic Preservation Agency 

$31,962,103 

$31,215,900 

$746,203 

2.30% 

State Museum 

$5,202,607 

$5,202,607 

0 

0 

State Library 

$61,897,077 

$56,060,091 

$5,836,986 

9.40% 

State Archive 

$3,967,100 

$3,967,100 

0 

0 

Humanities Council 

$2,490,840! 

$992,000 2 

$1,498,840 

60.20% 

Total 

$125,102,027 

$116,244,998 

$8,857,029 

7.10% 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by individual agencies except 1 where total budget was retrieved from 
IRS Form 990 and appropriation reported by the Illinois Arts Council, 2008. 

2 The Illinois Humanities Council received $992,000 in state appropriations that were passed through the Illinois Arts 
Council. 


Ill 






























APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


Until recently, the only agency to provide dedicated support to museums was the Illinois State 
Museum, through the Public Museum Capital and Operating Grants program. Other cultural agen¬ 
cies provide funding for museum services in cases where programming, collections, or buildings 
are relevant to the agency mission. An early Illinois State Museum grant program for museums, 
reported to have operated from the mid-1970s until the late 1980s, provided operating support to 
museums across the state. 

In the mid-1990s, a new funding program called the Public Museum Grant program was 
developed to provide both operating and capital support for public museums in the state. The pro¬ 
gram was administered jointly by the Illinois State Museum and the Illinois Department of Natural 
Resources, and was active between 1999 and 2004. From FY 1999 to FY 2002, $10 million was 
allocated annually from the Capital Development Bond Fund for the Capital Grant Program. Over 
the program’s history, $76 million in grant funds were awarded to 94 museums throughout Illinois 
to develop new and updated exhibits, expand facilities, renovate and restore buildings, and make 
infrastructure improvements. 

In 1987, special grants were created when the state legislature approved off-track betting 
(OTB) in Illinois. Since that time, the state has shared nearly $3 million of OTB revenue with about 
a dozen Illinois park districts. Museums that are on park land applied for these funds, and some 
came to rely on them as a regular source of operating revenue. Flowever, in 2004, in the wake of 
the state’s $2.3 billion budget gap, Governor Rod Blagojevich and lawmakers transferred funds 
to the general revenue. Grants were distributed from the general fund that year, but stopped after 
2004. 

Illinois may be unique in that one local source is the single largest source of public dollars 
for museums in the state. The Chicago Park District (CPD), an independent tax authority, reports 
annual operating revenues in excess of $390 million. Every year, the CPD distributes a portion of 
these funds to the 10 museums that form the Museums in the Park consortium and the Chicago 
Zoo. In FY 2008, CPD will distribute more than $39 million in operating support to these 11 insti¬ 
tutions in the proportions shown in Figure AD.l. 


112 






Figure AD.l. 2008 Museum, Aquarium, and Zoo Budget Detail 



Museum of Science 
and Industry 
17 % 


Lincoln Park Zoo 
14% 


John G. Shedd 
Aquarium 
12 % 


Art Institute of 
Chicago 
17 % 


Chicago History 
Museum 
5% 


Peggy Notebaert 
Nature Museum 
3% 


Field Museum of 
Natural History 
17 % 


Adler Planetarium 
5% 


DuSable Museum 
3% 

Mexican Fine Arts 
Museum 
3% 

Museum of 
Contemporary Art 
4% 


Source: Chicago Park District, 2008. 

Museums in Illinois appear to have well-developed advocacy and fund-building capacities. 
Several museum directors talked openly about traveling to Springfield and Washington to talk to 
representatives and talked as well about the importance of securing good lobbyists. Two different 
respondents linked the development of the capital grants program with the lobbying activity of 
Chicago museums. According to respondents, the Public Museum Grants program grew out of the 
governor’s desire to stem the tide of museum capital grant requests, which were steadily increas¬ 
ing after the Shedd Aquarium’s addition was built with the help of a state budget appropriation in 
1991. 

PENNSYLVANIA 

In Pennsylvania, museums are taken for granted as an important part of the state’s identity and as 
central both to the nation’s history and heritage and to the history of museum development in the 
United States. Philadelphia boasts the country’s first zoo and first public library, and has among 
the oldest and most renowned of the country’s art museums, science museums, and historical 
societies. Pittsburgh’s Carnegie institutions have served as national models. Respondents appeared 
to view Pennsylvania museums as both entitled to state and federal government support and as 
fully capable of leveraging that support through political connections and with the support of 
philanthropists. 


113 





























APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


I. Federal funding for museums in Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania institutions are highly competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. 
Table AD.3 lists the amount of funding Pennsylvania museums received from federal agencies 
between 2000 and 2006. For each of the four federal agencies, Pennsylvania ranked sixth or 
better in terms of total dollars received over the seven years. Pennsylvania ranks fifth in the country 
in terms of total federal dollars funding museums in the state. 

Table AD.3. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000—2006: Pennsylvania 


Pennsylvania 

2000-2006 

Rank 

IMLS 

$10,474,319 

5 

NSF 

$17,327,026 

6 

NEH 

$5,317,059 

4 

NEA 

$2,083,777 

5 

Total 

$35,202,181 

5 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008. 

In addition to being competitive in terms of state grants, Pennsylvania received $24,390,313 
in total earmarks from the years 2001 to 2006, ranking fourth in the country for the total amount 
of earmark support received during this period. 

II. State-level capacities 

When considered broadly, the public cultural sector in Pennsylvania consists of several distinct 
parts. The Historical and Museums Commission is an autonomous state agency. The Council on 
the Arts is budgeted through the state’s executive offices. The State Library is budgeted through 
the Department of Education. The Office of Economic and Community Development houses pro¬ 
grams that support zoos and cultural expositions and exhibitions. The Pennsylvania Humanities 
Council receives significant funding from the state. Table AD.4 lists these public cultural entities in 
Pennsylvania, along with their state appropriations and total revenues in FY 2007. The total of their 
combined budgets is almost $122 million, approximately $10 per capita. The proportion of these 
dollars contributed by the state is less than $103 million, or $8.25 per capita. 


114 















Table ADA. Pennsylvania Cultural Agency Budgets: Total Budget and State Appropriation, FY 2007 


Agency 

Total Budget FY 2007 

State Appropriation 

FY 2007 

Difference $ 

Difference % 

Historical and 

Museums Commission 

$59,491,000 

$49,720,000! 

$9,771,000 

16.40% 

Council on the Arts 

$17,339,700 

$15,225,000 

$2,114,700 

12.20% 

State Library 

$29,365,494 

$23,290,000 2 

$6,075,494 

20.70% 

Cultural Exhibitions 
and Expositions 

$11,725,000 

$11,725,000 

0 

0 

Accredited Zoos 

$2,250,000 

$2,250,000 

0 

0 

Pennsylvania 
Humanities Council 

$1,589,000 

$460,800 

$1,128,200 

71.00% 

Total 

$121,760,194 

$102,670,800 

$19,089,394 

15.70% 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, State Executive Office, Depart¬ 
ment of Education, Office of Economic and Community Development, Pennsylvania Humanities Council, 2008. 

includes regular appropriation and museum earmarks that are passed through the agency (see Table AD.6). 

includes regular appropriation and additional state funds for programs and services. 

The state support directed toward museums in Pennsylvania flows through both the Council 
on the Arts and the Historical and Museums Commission (HMC). The Council on the Arts provides 
general operating support (GOS) to cultural institutions, including art museums. HMC runs the 
State History Museum and is the only state agency that directly delivers museum services. HMC 
also is the sole agency with a program of dedicated funding for museums. The agency delivers 
noncompetitive GOS to county historical societies and competitive GOS to any museum type. The 
maximum award for historical society GOS is $10,000. The maximum award for museum GOS is 
$150,000. Table AD.5 shows state allocations to the HMC’s Museum Assistance Grants Program 
for the years 1999 to 2008. In addition, HMC administers line items to museums. Table AD.6 lists 
state line items passed through the HMC to museums in FY 2007. The Council on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act provide funding for museum services in cases where programming, collections, or 
buildings are relevant to agency mission. 

Table AD.5. Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission Museum Assistance 
Grants Program Budget, FY 1999-2008 


Source: Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, 2008. 


FY 

Amount 

1999 

$4,400,000 

2000 

$4,450,000 

2001 

$4,450,000 

2002 

$4,400,000 

2003 

$4,600,000 


FY 

Amount 

2004 

$6,000,000 

2005 

$5,100,000 

2006 

$4,100,000 

2007 

$4,100,000 

2008 

$3,800,000 


115 
















































APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


Table AD.6. Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission Line Items , FY 2007 


Entity 

Amount FY 2007 

Historical Education and Museum Assistance 

$3,385,000 

Regional History Centers 

$600,000 

University of Pennsylvania Museum 

$254,000 

Carnegie Museum of Natural History 

$254,000 

Carnegie Science Center 

$254,000 

Franklin Institute Science Museum 

$769,000 

Academy of Natural Sciences 

$471,000 

African American Museum in Philadelphia 

$359,000 

Everhart Museum 

$46,000 

Mercer Museum 

$196,000 

Whitaker Center for Science and the Arts 

$141,000 

Total 

$5,987,000 


Source: Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, 2008. 


Pennsylvania has a low level of public cultural sector integration. Public cultural agencies are 
not coordinated and do not share cultural planning. Funding streams are not concentrated in cul¬ 
tural agencies but are spread across many departments and offices of state government. Respon¬ 
dents commented that the two largest public cultural sector agencies—the Historical and Museums 
Commission and the Council on the Arts—do not coordinate their efforts. Lack of communication 
between these two agencies can be seen as an expression of the tension between local institu¬ 
tions such as county historical societies, which are substantially supported by the public sector, 
and large, high-profile, urban institutions supported by philanthropy and the private, nonprofit 
sector. Interview respondents suggest that the large, urban institutions with knowledgeable, well- 
connected board members and supporters wield much of the political power that leverages state 
dollars that go to museums. The HMC programs, which balance these earmarks and line items with 
dollars that are spread more equitably across the state, are portrayed as politically necessary rather 
than cooperatively gained and communally planned funding programs. 

MICHIGAN 

Discussions about government support for museums in Michigan are muted in the face of the 
state’s dire economic circumstances. Cultural sector leaders remember 1991, when, in an unprec¬ 
edented move, then-Governor Engler eliminated state funding for the Michigan Arts Council (it was 
soon reinstated). Museums and other cultural institutions in Detroit have begun to advocate for gov¬ 
ernment GOS, citing the economic development potential of the cultural sector. But respondents 
did not seem optimistic about the potency of these arguments. Respondents were explicit in saying 
that state dollars might not reach Michigan museums at all but for the influence of wealthy, well- 
connected advocates who support not only the state’s museums but also the political campaigns of 
state legislators. 


116 




















I. Federal funding for museums in Michigan 

Michigan institutions are competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. Table AD.7 
lists the amount of federal funding that Michigan museums received from federal agencies between 
2000 and 2006, along with the state’s rank compared to other states in the country. Although 
Michigan museums did not receive any NSF dollars over this period, significantly impacting their 
overall rank, the state’s museums rank 9th or better in terms of number of dollars received from 
IMLS, NEH, and NEA. Michigan ranks 13th in the country in terms of the total amount of federal 
grants to museums in the state. 

Table AD. 7. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000-2006: Michigan 


Michigan 

2000-2006 

Rank 

IMLS 

$6,205,450 

8 

NSF* 

$0 

30 

NEH 

$3,418,255 

8 

NEA 

$936,560 

9 

Total 

$10,560,265 

13 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH and NEA data, 2008. 

*NSF did not fund all states. 

Michigan received $8,001,801 in total federal earmarks from the years 2001 to 2006, ranking 
23rd in the country for the total amount of earmarks received during this period. 

II. State-level capacities 

In Michigan, public cultural agencies are organized under the Michigan Department of History, Arts 
and Libraries (MHAL), an umbrella agency established in 2002. Table AD.8 lists the agencies that 
make up MHAL, along with their state appropriations and total revenues in FY 2007. Also included 
is the Michigan Humanities Council, a 501(c)(3) private nonprofit organization that is not part of 
MHAL. The total of their combined budgets is almost $52 million, or just over $5 per capita. The 
proportion of these dollars contributed by the state is almost $39 million, or almost $4 per capita. 
MHAL’s Cultural Economic Development program will have a line item in the state budget for the 
first time in FY 2009. 

The Michigan Historical Center includes the state’s Historical Preservation Office, State 
Archives, and the State Historical Museum System, which comprises 11 public museums and 
historic sites. The Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs (MCACA) provides GOS to Michi¬ 
gan cultural institutions, including museums, through its Anchor Organizations program. A review of 
grants awarded by MCACA in 2008 shows that museums received just over $2.6 million. 


117 













APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


Table AD. 8. Michigan Department of History , Arts and Libraries and Michigan Humanities Council: 
Total Budgets and State Appropriations, FY 2007 


Agency 

Total Budget FY 2007 

State Appropriation 

FY 2007 

Difference $ 

Difference % 

Department 

Operations* 

$6,473,000 

$6,426,900 

$46,100 

0.70% 

Council for Arts and 
Cultural Affairs 

$7,161,400 

$6,461,400 

$700,000 

9.80% 

Mackinac State Park 
Commission 

$3,357,900 

$1,482,200 

$1,875,700 

55.90% 

Historical Center 

$8,342,600 

$5,063,000 

$3,279,600 

39.30% 

Michigan Humanities 
Council 

$1,400,000 

$131,900 

$1,268,100 

90.60% 

Michigan Library 

$24,974,400 

$19,255,100 

$5,719,300 

22.90% 

Total 

$51,709,300 

$38,820,500 

$12,888,800 

24.90% 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries, 2008. 
includes a $166,400 appropriation for the Michigan Film Office. 


In 2005, the State Historical Center administered a small grants program of $100,000 in 
dedicated funding for local historical societies. Applicants could apply for support of seven types 
of museum service. There were 144 applications received, requesting more than $905,000. The 
Historical Center reports that funding all of the projects deemed worthy of support would have cost 
more than $240,000. Table AD.9 shows the number of projects funded and total dollars awarded 
in each of seven categories. 

Table AD.9. Michigan Historical Center FY 2005 State and Local Historical Society Grants 


Project Type 

Number Awarded 

Project Type Total 

Collections Management and Development 

4 

$21,025 

Bricks and Mortar 

4 

$34,000 

Exhibit and Education Project 

4 

$14,985 

Regional/Collaborative Project 

1 

$4,000 

Marketing 

2 

$11,900 

Consultant and Planning Services 

2 

$10,000 

Professional Development 

9 

$4,090 

Totals 

26 

$100,000 


Source: Michigan Historical Center, 2008. 


Although the public cultural sector in Michigan is formally integrated within MHAL, the agency 
was regarded as ineffective. Respondents portrayed a sector in which each of the departments 
operates independently. This lack of integration was suggested to be the result of distrust and the 
lack of a shared culture among the institutions. Respondents did express a great deal of support 
for the Michigan Museums Association, which provides professional development opportunities for 
museum professionals and volunteers around the state. 


118 





























_ 


Medium-Size States—Virginia, Massachusetts, Washington 

VIRGINIA 

Discussions of government support for museums in Virginia center on the role of museums in pre¬ 
serving the state's history, which is central to its identity, and in educating young people through 
work with schools. Generally, respondents consider the state supportive of museums. However, 
several respondents agreed that the state lacks a consistent system for distributing dollars to muse¬ 
ums and that support is determined on the basis of political influence. 

I. Federal funding for museums in Virginia 

Virginia institutions are quite competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. Table 
AD.10 lists the amount of funding Virginia museums received from federal agencies between 2000 
and 2006. Museums in Virginia fared much better gaining dollars from NSF and NEH than from 
IMLS and NEA. Virginia ranked sixth in the country in terms of total federal dollars funding muse¬ 
ums in the state between 2000 and 2006. 

Table AD. 10. Federal Support for Museums by Source , FY 2000-2006: Virginia 


Virginia 

2000-2006 

Rank 

IMLS 

$4,903,352 

13 

NSF 

$24,378,909 

4 

NEH 

$5,286,085 

5 

NEA 

$202,366 

27 

Total 

$34,770,712 

6 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008. 


Virginia received $20,929,882 in total federal earmarks from 2001 to 2006, ranking seventh 
in the country for the amount of earmark support received during this period. 

II. State-level capacities 

The public cultural sector in Virginia is made up of state agencies; public museums; and private, 
nonprofit organizations. Table AD.ll lists these public cultural agencies and museums, along with 
their state appropriations and total revenues in FY 2007. In FY 2007, their combined cultural bud¬ 
gets totaled more than $111 million, or about $14.50 per capita. The proportion of these dollars 
contributed by the state was more than $72 million, or almost $9.50 per capita. 

The commonwealth of Virginia provides direct support to seven public museums and sites. Five 
of these museums fall under the Secretariat of Education: the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation, 
Frontier Culture Museum, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Science Museum of Virginia, and Gunston 
Hall Plantation. Two other public museums fall under the Secretariat of Natural Resources: the 
Museum of Natural History and the Chippokes Plantation Farm Museum. In recent years, the state 
required that these public museums raise 40% of their operating budget from private sources. 


119 














APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


(Nonstate share appears lower in the calculations because we have included both regular appro¬ 
priations and dollars drawn from a central fund.) 


Table AD. 11. Virginia Cultural Agency Budgets: Total Budget and State Appropriation, FY 2007 


Agency 

Total Budget 

FY 2007 

State Appropriation 
FY 2007 2 

Difference $ 

Difference % 

Commission for the Arts 

$5,649,527 

$4,873,428* 

$776,099 13.70% 

Department of FHistoric Resources 

$6,182,681 

$4,288,726 

$1,893,955 

30.60% 

VA Foundation for the Flumanities 

$4,372,680 

$1,532,653 

$2,840,027 

64.90% 

The Library of Virginia 1 

$41,272,180 

$31,365,691 

$9,906,489 

24.20% 

Chippokes Plantation Farm Foundation 

$229,270 

$162,176 

$67,094 

29.30% 

Museum of Fine Arts 

$16,935,000 

$8,196,000* 

$8,739,000 

51.60% 

Frontier Culture Museum 

$2,114,776 

$1,696,196 

$418,580 

19.80% 

Gunston Hall 

$1,800,000 

$636,438 

$1,163,562 

64.60% 

Museum of Natural History 

$3,696,000 

$2,994,000* 

$702,000 

19% 

Science Museum 

$10,193,000 

$5,500,620* 

$4,692,380 

46% 

Jamestown Yorktown Foundation 

$18,851,498 

$11,013,295 

$7,838,203 

41.60% 

Total 

$111,296,612 

$172,268,124 

$39,037,389 

35.10% 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of data obtained from individual agencies except where noted, 2008. 
includes general fund appropriations and additional funds drawn from a central appropriation. 

Source: Virginia Office of Planning and Budget. 

Reflects dollars from general appropriations only except where noted. 

The year 2007 was the 400th anniversary of the landing at Jamestown. Jamestown had a FY 
2007 budget of $9,357,519, of which $2,104,278 or 22.5% were state dollars. If those dol¬ 
lars are included, the combined agency budgets total more than $120 million, or about $16 per 
capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state is about $74.5 million, or about 
$9.75 per capita. 

Additionally, capital allocations were made to museums (see Table AD.12). Informants in 
Virginia suggested that these capital allocations are not typical, so we have not calculated state 
shares with these amounts included, but have listed them because they reflect true FY 2007 
state expenditures. 

Table AD. 12. Capital Allocations to Virginia Cultural Agencies: FY 2007 


Museum 

Allocation 

Museum of Fine Arts 

$106,537,000 

Frontier Culture Museum 

$306,000 

Science Museum 

$880,000 


Source: Museum of Fine Arts, Frontier Culture Museum, and Science Museum, 2008. 


120 































_ 


The Department of Historic Resources provides grants for the preservation of historic sites and 
museums located at historic sites. The Virginia Commission on the Arts provides GOS to art muse¬ 
ums (see Table AD.13). The commission also provides program support to any type of museum 
that is mounting an art exhibition. Reportedly, approximately 65% of the Commission’s grants go to 
museum GOS. 

Table AD. 13. Virginia Commission on the Arts, Funding to Museums, FY 2001-2008 


Year 

Amount 

Number of grants 

2001 

$635,412 

61 

2002 

$700,531 

80 

2003 

$740,452 

72 

2004 

$409,187 

64 

2005 

$505,822 

80 

2006 

$656,727 

80 

2007 

$850,253 

87 

2008 

$1,124,482 

93 


Source: Virginia Commission on the Arts, 2008. 


Most of the state support directed toward private, nonprofit, and local public museums in 
Virginia flows through the state budget appropriations process. In 2000, the Virginia assembly 
conducted a study of General Assembly appropriations over successive years. Between 1990 and 
2000, more than $200 million was distributed to nonstate agencies via line item allocations. 

Annual amounts appropriated fluctuated between zero and $62 million. For two of the last three 
years, no allocations were made to nonstate agencies because of state budget difficulties. The 
nonstate agency allocations are administered by the Department of Historic Resources and are con¬ 
tingent upon submission of an application specifying whether the funds will support capital costs 
or operations. Though there are no published reports of the number of applications submitted, one 
interviewee estimated the number of submissions for state budget earmarks to be approximately 
200 per budget cycle. 

Virginia’s public cultural sector is fragmented. Public cultural agencies are not coordinated, nor 
do they participate in shared cultural planning. Funding for cultural agencies is spread across very 
different offices within state government and in different locations across the state. Respondents 
identified the major source of public money as state appropriations, which were described as vola¬ 
tile at best. Stakeholders in the museum community tried to move away from the earmark process 
to a competitive, juried system, but their efforts were defeated. 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Respondents suggested that in Massachusetts there is a long-standing belief that philanthropists 
should pay for (and control) cultural institutions, including museums. When Boston’s city govern- 


121 





























APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


ment came to be controlled primarily by members of Boston's immigrant communities, the city 
distanced itself from its cultural institutions, and their supporters turned to the state, the federal 
government, and East Coast philanthropists. Further, state government support to the cultural 
sector in Massachusetts has been subject to severe cuts. The state government sets a ceiling on 
property taxes, and city and town governments are not empowered to levy local income or sales 
taxes. Even in Boston—the commonwealth’s largest city and home to internationally renowned 
museums—regular municipal-level support for cultural institutions was perceived to be negligible 
or nonexistent. State support does exist, of course. As several respondents pointed out, the Massa¬ 
chusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (Mass MOCA) was developed with several substantial state 
earmarks. But the relation between museums and government is perceived as strained. 

I. Federal funding for museums in Massachusetts 

Massachusetts institutions are highly competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. 
Table AD.14 lists the amount of funding Massachusetts museums received from federal agencies 
between 2000 and 2006. For each of the four federal agencies, Massachusetts ranked fourth 
or better in terms of total dollars received over the seven years. Massachusetts ranks third in the 
country in terms of total federal dollars funding museums in the state. 

Table AD. 14. Federal Support for Museums by Source , FY 2000-2006: Massachusetts 


Massachusetts 

2000-2006 

Rank 

IMLS 

$15,411,838 

3 

NSF 

$26,505,013 

3 

NEH 

$7,222,587 

3 

NEA 

$2,175,235 

4 

Total 

$51,314,673 

3 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008. 

Massachusetts received $8,826,651 in total federal earmarks from 2001 to 2006, ranking 
22nd in the country for the total amount of earmarks received during this period. Respondents 
informed us that Massachusetts museums have received additional earmarks, but these earmarks 
are not necessarily identified as museum projects (for example, some have been identified as 
transportation projects). Such earmarks were not, therefore, identified in the research and are not 
included in these totals. 

II. State-level capacities 

The public cultural sector in Massachusetts is highly integrated within two deeply segmented agen¬ 
cies: the Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC) and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, which 
governs the Commonwealth Museum, FHistorical Commission, Archives, and Library. Table AD.15 
lists state public cultural agencies and entities in Massachusetts, along with their state appropria- 


122 















_ 


tions and total revenues in FY 2007. The total of their combined budgets was $21.5 million, or 
just over $3 per capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state was close to $16 
million, or not quite $2.50 per capita. 

The Commonwealth Museum and the Trailside Museum are public museums. (The Trailside 
Museum receives annual appropriations passed through the Department of Conservation and Rec¬ 
reation.) The Massachusetts Cultural Council provides a program of dedicated GOS to more than 
460 cultural organizations, including museums. 


Table AD. 15. Massachusetts Cultural Agencies: Total Budgets and State Appropriations, FY 2007 


Agency 

Total Budget 

FY 2007 

State Appropriation 
FY 2007 

Difference $ 

Difference % 

Historical Commission 

$1,703,493 

$991,125* 

$712,368 

41.80% 

Commonwealth Museum 

$4,012,792 

$2,712,792 

$1,300,00 

32.40% 

Massachusetts Cultural Council 1 

$13,418,112 

$11,393,520 

$2,024,592 

15.10% 

Trailside Museum 

$578,253 

$375,000 

$203,253 

35.10% 

State Library 

$1,275,000 

$1,220,000 

$55,000 

4 . 30 % 

Archives 

$539,562 

$539,562* 

0 

0 

Total 

$21,527,212 

$15,701,312 

$5,825,800 

27.10% 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by individual agency except * where data was obtained from the 
Secretary of the Commonwealth Office, 2008. 

1 In FY 2007, MCC passed the Massachusetts Foundation for the Flumanities (a 501(c)(3) private nonprofit organiza¬ 
tion) $1,118,000 in state revenues, 74.6% of its total FY 2007 budget of $1,498,000. 

Museums receive support from MCC in several ways. They can receive GOS across MCC’s disci¬ 
pline-based programs—not only in history, visual arts, and science but also in the multidisciplinary 
and presenting programs. GOS awards are decided by peer review panel. Unlike the typical state 
arts council, MCC funds all of the types of museums that are eligible for IMLS funding. Organiza¬ 
tions can receive three years of GOS from MCC and then must reapply. MCC also streams revenue 
to local cultural councils in 329 of the commonwealth’s 351 cities and towns. Local cultural 
councils provide project support available to museums. Small museums reportedly are more likely 
to have access to these local dollars. Respondents believed that the 2007 state budget included 
earmarks to museums, but we could not find evidence of them in available state budget docu¬ 
ments. Earmarks are passed through MCC. 

Finally, MCC manages the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund (MCFF), which provides capi¬ 
tal grants to cultural institutions, including museums. MCFF is budgeted through the Massachu¬ 
setts Development Finance Agency (MassDevelopment). Appropriations to MCFF were reported to 
be $13 million in FY 2006, $12 million in FY 2007, and $7 million in FY 2008. A review of grants 
given by MCFF in 2007 shows that approximately $3 million was given to museum projects. 

Revenue for MCC is generated through the state lottery. However, advocates in the state are at 
pains to point out that these lottery dollars are not dedicated revenue. In 2002, outgoing Governor 
Jane Swift unilaterally cut the MCC budget by 62%. Since then, some elements of the cultural 


123 





















APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 





community have coalesced around the advocacy organization Massachusetts Advocates for the 
Arts, Science, and Humanities, and increases to the MCC budget have been leveraged based on 
arguments about the economic development value of the arts and culture. However, respondents 
claimed that even now the museum community has been at best a reluctant partner in those 
efforts. Although MCC budgets have increased over the years since the cut, and public dollars to 
the cultural sector have increased with the initiation of the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund, 
respondents suggested that the cultural sector in Massachusetts continues to feel embattled. 
Respondents overwhelmingly identified the support of Sen. Ted Kennedy at the federal level as 
essential to the health and well-being of the state’s cultural institutions. 

WASHINGTON 

Discussions about government support for museums in Washington focus on the public benefit 
provided by museums and on government’s role in developing that benefit. State government 
has invested significantly in building cultural infrastructure through large- and small-scale capital 
projects, making culture and recreation a focus of revitalization and tourism. Seattle boasts an 
internationally recognized new central public library building, which opened in 2004 and was paid 
for in part by a $296.4 million city bond measure passed by popular vote. In 2007, the Seattle 
Art Museum opened the $85 million Olympic Sculpture Park in addition to a major expansion of 
its downtown building. Tacoma has established major new museum buildings, including the State 
History Museum (1996), Museum of Glass (2002), and Tacoma Art Museum (2003). In 2007 
Governor Chris Gregoire signed a bill authorizing a new $111 million Heritage Center to house the 
State Archives, State Library, and exhibit space for the State History Museum. Revenues for the 
Heritage Center will be provided by a new one-time $5 fee for initial domestic corporate filings, a 
$2 surcharge for recording instruments with the county auditor, and private funding. All of these 
capital projects involved substantial levels of public sector support beyond funding, such as grant¬ 
ing easements, donating surplus property, or fostering interagency cooperation. Some respondents 
suggested that there is a serious asymmetry between the amounts being invested in building facili¬ 
ties and the money available for general operating and program support to pay for these facilities to 
provide museum services. 

I. Federal funding for museums in Washington 

Washington institutions can be characterized as fairly competitive in terms of their ability to secure 
federal funding. Funding from individual federal agencies to Washington museums is listed in Table 
AD.16, along with the state’s rank compared to other states in the country. The state has been 
notably more competitive in securing IMLS and NEA grant dollars than in securing NEH and NSF 
grant dollars. Washington ranks 20th in the country in terms of the total amount of federal grants 
funding museums in the state. 


124 






Table AD . 16. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000-2006: Washington 


Washington 

2000-2006 

Rank 

IMLS 

$4,813,912 

15 

NSF 

$417,305 

27 

NEH 

$1,308,515 

22 

NEA 

$852,671 

11 

Total 

$7,392,403 

20 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008. 

Washington received $10,075,274 in total federal earmarks from 2001 to 2006, ranking 17th 
in the country for the total amount of earmarks received during this period. 

II. State-level capacities 

The public cultural sector in Washington includes both public agencies and nonprofit organiza¬ 
tions that receive most of their funding from the state. Table AD.17 lists Washington public culture 
agencies and organizations, along with their state appropriations and total revenues in FY 2007. In 
FY 2007, the combined budgets of these agencies and programs totaled more than $42 million, or 
approximately $6.50 per capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state was just 
over $33 million, or $5 per capita. 


Table AD. 17. Washington Cultural Agencies: Total Budgets and State Appropriations, FY 2007 


Agency 

Total Budget 

FY 2007 

State Appropriation 
FY 2007 

Difference $ 

Difference % 

State Arts Commission 

$5,364,393 

$4,609,759! 

$754,634 

14.10% 

Humanities Washington 2 

$1,075,507 

$49,800 

$1,025,707 

95.40% 

Office of Archaeology and Preservation 

$6,732,568 

$6,013,451 3 

$719,177 

10.70% 

Eastern Washington Historical Society 

$3,490,155 

$2,006,343 

$1,483,812 

42.50% 

Washington State Historical Society 

$4,960,414 

$3,265,992 

$1,694,422 

34.20% 

State Library 

$9,437,930 

$6,083,240 

$3,354,609 

35.50% 

State Archives 

$10,963,634 

$10,953,634 

0 

0 

State Oral History Program 

$339,983 

$172,023 

$167,960 

49.40% 

Total 

$42,364,584 

$33,154,242 

$9,210,342 

21.70% 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by individual agencies, 2008. 

^Includes $2,253,595 received from other state agencies to manage the Art in Public Places Program, a percentage for 
art program. 

2 This represents the first allocation of state dollars ever received by Humanities Washington, a 501(c)(3) private, 
nonprofit organization. 

includes a two-year earmark from the state capital fund for the rehabilitation of county courthouses. 

The Washington State History Museum and State Capital Museum are public museums run by 
the Washington State Historical Society (WSHS). FY 2007 budgets for these museums are shown 


125 
















































APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


in Table AD.18. The Eastern Washington State Historical Society also runs a museum. Both histori¬ 
cal societies are 501(c)(3) private, nonprofit organizations that receive the majority of their funding 
from the state. WSHS also administers museum technical support and small grants to heritage- 
related museums through its Heritage Outreach program. This is the only state program that 
provides dedicated support to museums. Other cultural agencies fund museum services in cases 
where programming, collections, or buildings are relevant to agency mission. 


Table AD. 18. Washington Historical Society: Program Budgets and State Appropriations, FY 2007 


Agency 

Total Budget 

FY 2007 

State Appropriation 
FY 2007 

Difference $ 

Difference % 

State History Museum 

$2,279,000 

$1,113,744 

$1,165,256 

51.10% 

State Capitol Museum 

$322,100 

$320,100 

$2,000 

0.60% 

*Heritage Outreach 

$1,060,000 

not available 

not available 

not available 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, Washington State Historical Society, 2008. 

includes multiple statewide outreach programs. The Historical Society was unable to provide a breakdown of funds to 
this program. 

Two state-funded capital grants programs serve museums and other cultural institutions: the 
Historical Society administers the Heritage Capital Grants Program (HCGP) and the Department of 
Community, Trade and Economic Development, Office of Community Development administers the 
Building for the Arts program. FY 2001-2008 appropriations for the Building for the Arts program 
are shown in Table AD.19. Budgets for HCGP were not available, but were reported to have risen to 
around $10 million in FY 2007. A rough estimate of FY 2007 state expenditure that includes dol¬ 
lars in these programs would total approximately $55,154,242, or more than $8.50 per capita. 

Table AD. 19. Building for the Arts State Two-Year Appropriations, FY 2001-2008 


Year 

2001-2002 

2003-2004 

2005-2006 

2007-2008 

Budget 

$4,100,000 

$4,468,000 

$6,000,000 

$12,000,000 


Source: Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Office of Community Development, 
2008. 

The King County cultural development agency 4Culture provides GOS to cultural institutions, 
including museums, in Seattle and King counties. Lodging taxes provide the majority of dollars in 
4Culture’s GOS program. 

Washington has a low level of public cultural sector integration. Individual agencies are strong 
and well connected to institutions and organizations within their discipline. Advocacy and coordina¬ 
tion within each discipline appear quite robust. But the sector is structured in a way that clearly 
divides the arts from humanities and preservation from library services. Heritage, both cultural 
and natural, is incorporated deeply into Washington’s public sector. A Washington State Heritage 
Caucus meets weekly during the legislative session. The Washington Museum Association is active 


126 



















- 


in policy at the state level and provides advocacy training and information to its members (who 
work primarily in heritage and history). The idea of preserving and promoting heritage provides 
a foundation for cooperation between agencies responsible for preservation, recreation, natural 
resources, and economic development, as well as creating avenues for all types of museums to 
garner resources from these agencies. The arts also have well-developed advocacy and fund-build¬ 
ing capacities. Key nonprofit organizations include the Arts Fund, Artist Trust, Washington State 
Arts Alliance, and Allied Arts. 

Small States—New Mexico, Maine 

NEW MEXICO 

Interview respondents in New Mexico regard museums as a part of the public sector and are 
proud of their government’s history of robust support for museums. Museums are acknowledged 
as having a central role in the cultural sector and as being essential to the sector’s impact on the 
state’s economy and identity. New Mexico supports nine prominent public museums as well as a 
number of state historic monuments and sites. Respondents suggested that the diverse and stable 
public museum infrastructure in New Mexico provides important and well-understood benefits to 
the public. When cultural assets are donated to the state, there is a clear pathway and source of 
support for their incorporation into the public sector. The respondents gave examples of valuable 
archeological objects, conservation-worthy landholdings, and historical collections and buildings 
that would have been sold into the private sector had they not been easily absorbed into the public 
cultural sector. 

I. Federal funding for museums in New Mexico 

New Mexico institutions have an average level of competitiveness in terms of their ability to secure 
federal funding. Funding from individual federal agencies to New Mexico museums is listed in Table 
AD.20, along with the state’s rank compared to other states in the country. New Mexico has fared 
better at securing NEA and NEH dollars than either IMLS or NSF dollars. The state ranks 21st in 
the country in terms of the total amount of federal grants funding museums in the state. 

Table AD.20. Federal Support for Museums by Source , FY 2000-2006: New Mexico 


New Mexico 

2000-2006 

Rank 

IMLS 

$3,178,852 

23 

NSF 

$742,108 

25 

NEH 

$2,819,292 

12 

NEA 

$528,706 

16 

Total 

$7,268,959 

21 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008. 

New Mexico ranked only 46th in the country for the total amount of federal earmarks received 
during the years 2001 to 2006, receiving $1,837,301 in total earmarks during this period. 


127 



























APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


II. State-level capacities 

The New Mexico Office of Cultural Affairs (OCA) comprises the public cultural sector in New 
Mexico, leading cultural planning in the state, operating cultural institutions across the broad spec¬ 
trum of the sector, and controlling the substantial proportion of state money entering the public 
and nonprofit cultural sector. Table AD.21 lists the divisions that make up OCA, along with their 
state allocations and total revenues in FY 2007. In that year, OCA’s total budget was almost $41 
million, or approximately $21 per capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state is 
just over $29 million, or approximately $15 per capita. 

OCA divisions that deliver museum services include 10 entities: the six museums and institu¬ 
tions in the Museum of New Mexico (MNM) system, as well as the Museum of Natural History, 
the Museum of Space History, the Farm and Ranch Museum, and the National Hispanic Cultural 
Center. In addition, the Museum Resources Division funds such museum services as conservation 
and education. Funds allocated to public museums cover the great majority of their GOS needs. 
Other divisions, such as the Arts Division and the Historic Preservation Division, provide funding 
for museum services in cases where programming, collection care, or capital improvements are 
relevant to agency mission. 


Table AD.21. New Mexico Cultural Agencies: Total Budgets and State Allocations , FY 2007 


Agency 

Total Budget 

FY 2007 

State Allocation 
FY 2007 

Difference $ 

Difference % 

(MNM) Museum of Fine Art 

$1,588,500 

$1,167,100 

$421,400 

26.50% 

(MNM) State History Museum 

$1,765,500 

$1,412,800 

$352,700 

20.00% 

(MNM) Museum of International Folk Art 

$1,717,900 

$1,219,100 

$498,800 

29.00% 

(MNM) Museum of Indian Arts and Culture 

$1,694,500 

$1,211,500 

$483,000 

28.50% 

(MNM) Office of Archaeological Studies 

$2,644,400 

$50,000 

$2,594,400 

98.11% 

(MNM) State Monuments 

$2,380,500 

$2,158,200 

$222,300 

9.30% 

Museum of Natural History 

$3,747,100 

$2,971,500 

$775,600 

20.70% 

Museum of Space History 

$1,933,200 

$1,456,400 

$476,800 

24.10% 

Farm and Ranch Museum 

$1,917,600 

$1,822,600 

$95,000 

5.00% 

National Hispanic Cultural Center 

$3,118,000 

$2,778,000 

$340,000 

10.90% 

State Library 

$5,430,800 

$3,713,800 

$1,717,000 

31.60% 

Program Support 1 

$4,086,000 

$3,672,800 

$413,200 

10.10% 

Museum Resources Division 2 

$4,114,400 

$3,075,400 

$1,039,000 

25.30% 

Arts Division 3 

$2,186,100 

$1,596,200 

$589,900 

27.00% 

Historic Preservation Division 

$2,356,400 

$802,000 

$1,554,400 

66.00% 

Total 

$40,680,900 

$29,107,900 

$11,573,500 

28.40% 


Source: Urban Institute analysis, New Mexico Office of Cultural Affairs, 2008. 

1 Includes the Office of the Secretary, Administrative Services and a nonrecurring $100,000 allocation to the Film 
Commission. 

2 Includes the Museum of New Mexico Press and the Administrative Services Division for the Museum of New Mexico 
(State Monuments, State History Museum, Museum of Fine Arts, Museum of International Folk Art, Museum of Indian 
Arts and Culture). 

3 Includes the Music Commission allocation of $175,000. 


128 


































_ 


- 


New Mexico has a nondonations clause. This means that state agencies, including OCA, cannot 
directly grant money to any nonprofit organization. Nonprofit museums do receive state monies, 
typically for capital improvements, which may be passed through OCA. Nonprofits also are given 
state contracts, which are line items in the OCA budget. In FY 2007, the New Mexico Humanities 
Council (a 501(c)(3) organization) received state funding through OCA in the amount of $144,600, 
20.3% of its total FY 2007 budget of $713,810. 

The public cultural sector in New Mexico is highly integrated. Its Office of Cultural Affairs is 
a cabinet-level, centralized agency that leads and coordinates cultural planning and articulates, 
broadcasts, and develops the role of culture in the state's economic and community development 
efforts. The great majority of state dollars that go to museums and other cultural institutions and 
organizations flow through OCA. Allocations to divisions within OCA are made by the secretary of 
OCA. The OCA budget includes annual capital requests, which are coordinated and submitted by 
the secretary. OCA also administers state funds earmarked to its divisions. 

There are potential drawbacks of such a strong and centralized public cultural sector. Some 
respondents suggested that opportunities to exhibit novel or challenging interpretations of New 
Mexican identity and history are lessened because public museums are so dominant and are deeply 
enmeshed with the tourist economy. Respondents also reported that there are occasional com¬ 
plaints about the admission fees that public museums charge. Respondents suggested that public 
dollars do not appear to crowd out private dollars in New Mexico. Rather, private sector resources 
are freed up to support a range of other museums because state support covers the basic needs of 
public museums. 

New Mexico’s political leaders, including both Governor Bill Richardson and members of 
the state legislature, were portrayed as highly supportive of cultural agencies and institutions. 
Respondents characterized New Mexico as a place where politicians, community leaders, and the 
public acknowledge the vital role of culture as it contributes both to the multiethnic identity of the 
state and to the tourism economy. This attitude is reflected in the fact that OCA is a cabinet-level 
state government agency that has consistently robust funding. OCA and its secretary are highly 
respected, visible, and powerful, and the agency and its leadership have stabilized substantial 
public sector funding for GOS to museums within the public sector as well as increasing state sup¬ 
port to all kinds of cultural institutions in New Mexico. 

MAINE 

Maine interview respondents considered government support for museums to be deeply relevant 
to the growth and well-being of the state. Museums are acknowledged as a vital component of the 
cultural sector and are prominent in the state’s tourism economy. Museums also are considered 
to be pivotal assets in communities. Respondents consistently reported that museums are an 
important part of economic and community development because they provide critical anchors for 
downtown revitalization. Respondents suggested that the influential Discovery Research program 
has been important in developing this understanding of the benefits of museums to communi- 


129 





APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


ties. Discovery Research, a program in which communities survey their local cultural assets, was 
first a collaboration of the Chamber of Commerce and the Arts Council in Bangor, with resources 
delivered through the Northern Maine Development District. The program is currently housed at the 
Maine State Arts Commission and has been active in 34 communities around the state. 

I. Federal funding for museums in Maine 

Maine institutions have an average level of competitiveness in terms of their ability to secure fed¬ 
eral funding. Table AD.22 lists the amount of funding Maine museums received from federal agen¬ 
cies between 2000 and 2006, along with the state’s rank compared to other states in the country. 
Maine has had better success securing funding from IMLS and NEH than it has from NSF or NEA. 
Maine ranks 22nd in the country in terms of the total amount of federal grants to museums in the 
state. 

Table AD.22. Federal Support for Museums by Source, 2000-2006: Maine 


Maine 

2000-2006 

Rank 

IMLS 

$4,265,581 

18 

NSF 

$33,538 

29 

NEH 

$2,585,170 

16 

NEA 

$166,889 

33 

Total 

$7,051,178 

22 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008. 

In addition, Maine received $5,212,104 in total federal earmarks between the years 2001 and 
2006, ranking 32nd in the country for the total amount of earmarks received during this period. 

II. State-level capacities 

The public cultural sector in Maine includes public agencies and nonprofit organizations that 
receive ongoing funding from the state. These agencies and organizations all belong to an umbrella 
agency, the Maine Cultural Affairs Council. Table AD.23 lists the eight agencies and organizations 
that make up Maine’s public cultural sector, along with their state allocations and total revenues in 
FY 2007. The total of their combined budgets is more than $14 million, or approximately $11 per 
capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state is just less than $7.8 million, or 
almost $6 per capita. 

The Maine State Museum and the Maine Historical Society both operate museums and are the 
only public cultural agencies that deliver museum services in the state. The Maine State Museum 
is the sole cultural agency with a program of dedicated funding for museums in the state. This 
program provides small project grants to museums. Other cultural agencies provide funding for 
museum services in cases where programming, collection care, or capital improvements are rel¬ 
evant to agency mission. 


130 













Table AD.23. Maine Cultural Agencies: Total Budgets and State Allocations, FY 2007 


Agency 

Total Budget 

FY 2007 

State Allocation 
FY 2007 

Difference $ 

Difference % 

Maine State Museum 

$1,847,387 

$1,585,967 

$216,420 

11.70% 

*Maine Historical Society 

$2,181,371 

$94,000 

$2,087,371 

95.70% 

Maine Arts Commission 

$1,585, 621 

$778,535 

$807,086 

50.90% 

Maine Historic Preservation Commission 

$1,265,415 

$305,419 

$959,996 

75.90% 

Maine Humanities Council 

$1,800,000 

$183,000 

$1,617,000 

89.80% 

Maine Cultural Affairs Council 

$1,032,018 

$496,828 

$535,190 

51.90% 

*Maine State Archives 

$984,000 

$862,000 

$122,000 

12.40% 

Maine State Library 

$5,245,613 

$3,459,319 

$1,786,294 

34.10% 

Total 

$14,355,804 

$7,765,068 

$8,131,357 

56.60% 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by the State of Maine, except *data obtained directly from agency, 
2008. 


The public cultural sector in Maine is integrated in important ways through the Maine Cultural 
Affairs Council. The Council was established in 1999 to coordinate cultural planning and to admin¬ 
ister funds to the cultural agencies through the New Century Community Program (NCCP). This 
program provides a regular forum for commissioners and executive directors of the eight cultural 
entities to meet, plan, and advocate for cultural activities and infrastructure in the state. Respon¬ 
dents suggested that the career executive directors account for much of NCCP’s strength and 
effectiveness. Several executive directors have held their positions for 20 years or longer. Although 
the Cultural Affairs Council does not control a significant amount of state funding, nor do the state 
dollars that go to cultural agencies flow through the Council, it does effectively coordinate cultural 
planning and distribute shared resources among the public cultural agencies and organizations. 

NCCP provides the funds that go into the Maine State Museum’s dedicated grant-making to 
museums. While funding for the eight public cultural agencies was reported to be stable and fairly 
robust, funding for NCCP has been uneven. The program does hold a permanent line in the state’s 
budget, but it has not been funded every year (see Table AD.24). The program was first funded by 
a bond issue, and currently draws its resources from those original bond issue funds and from the 
state’s general revenue. A proposed bond issue for capital improvements to cultural facilities was 
tabled in 2006 and then passed in 2007. With these dollars in place, capital support for muse¬ 
ums will begin to flow through both the State Museum (for history museums, historical societies, 
and heritage) and the Arts Commission (for art museums). Table AD.24 shows state allocations to 
NCCP and annual allocations from NCCP funds to the Maine State Museum for the years 1999 to 

2007. 


131 























APPENDIX D. STATE PROFILES 


Table AD.24. New Century Community Program Allocation and Annual Allocations to Maine State 


Museum, 1999-2007 


Year 

NCCP allocation 

State Museum NCCP allocation 

1999 

$3,200,000 

n/a 

2000 

$1,000,000 

$194,600 

2001 

$200,000 

0 

2002 

0 

$21,677 

2003 

0 

$23,313 

2004 

0 

0 

2005 

0 

[$100,000 spent by all seven 
agencies as a group] 

2006 

0 

$13,571 

2007 

0 

$49,500 


Source: State of Maine and Maine State Museum, 2008. 


Maine exhibits a high level of productive cooperation and positive sentiment within the public 
cultural sector, which has strong relationships with legislators and high levels of expertise and sta¬ 
bility among its cultural sector leadership. The current governor, John Baldacci, and the first lady, 
Karen Baldacci, were portrayed as being highly supportive of cultural agencies and institutions. The 
Cultural Affairs Council is perceived as highly effective, with strong connections to and advocates 
among legislators. Distribution of the Council’s funds provided through NCCP was considered to be 
very fair. Respondents agreed that agencies had benefited greatly by joining in this alliance, which 
enables public cultural sector agencies and organizations to advocate and plan together. 


132 

















APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS 


Illinois 

Tanya S. Anthony - Director, Office of Budget and Management, Chicago Park District, Chicago, IL 
Ted A. Beattie - President and CEO, Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, IL 

Michelle Bibbs - Director of Cultural Grants, Chicago Cultural Affairs Department, Chicago, IL 

Karen E. Everingham - Executive Director, Illinois Association of Museums, Springfield, IL 

Steve Hughes - Chief Financial Officer, Chicago Park District, Chicago, IL 

Melinda Molloy - Treasurer, Chicago Park District, Chicago, IL 

David R. Mosena - President and CEO, Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, IL 

Rebecca Page - Executive Assistant, Museums in the Park, Chicago, IL 

Jim Richerson - Director, Lakeview Museum of Arts and Sciences, Peoria, IL 

Kate Schureman - Vice President of Planning and Government Affairs, Lakeview Museum of Arts 

and Sciences, Peoria, IL 

Carlos Tortolero - President, National Museum of Mexican Art, Chicago, IL 
Karen Witter - Associate Museum Director, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL 

Maine 

Ned Allen - President, Bridgton Historical Society; Immediate Past President, Maine Archives and 
Museums, Augusta, ME 

Steve Bromage - Assistant Director, Maine Historical Society, Portland, ME 

Paul Brunetti - Assistant to the Commissioner, Maine Department of Economic and Community 

Development, Augusta, ME 

Richard D’Abate - Executive Director, Maine Historical Society, Portland, ME 

Maureen Heffernan - Executive Director, Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens, Boothbay, ME 

JR Phillips - Director, Maine State Museum, Augusta, ME 

Donna McNeil - Director, Maine Arts Commission, Augusta, ME 

John Roman - President, Maine Cultural Affairs Council, Augusta, ME 

Alden Wilson - Former Director, Maine Arts Commission, Augusta, ME 

Oily Wilder - Former President and CEO, Center for Maine Contemporary Art, Rockport, ME 

Massachusetts 

Paul Bessire - Deputy Director for External Relations, Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, MA 

Laura Canter - Executive Vice President, Finance Programs, MassDevelopment, Boston, MA 

Louis Casagrande - Executive Director, Boston Children’s Museum, Boston, MA 

Bob Culver - President and CEO, MassDevelopment, Boston, MA 

Dan Hunter - Executive Director, Massachusetts Advocates for the Arts, Sciences, 

and Humanities, Boston, MA 

Bill McAvoy - Director, Institutional Relations, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA 
Ann McQueen - Co-Chair and Programs Director, The Boston Foundation, Boston, MA 
Jane Preston - Director of Programs, New England Foundation for the Arts, Boston, MA 





APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS 


Dee Schneidman - Research Manager, New England Foundation for the Arts, Boston, MA 
Kristen Wawruck - Government and Foundation Relations Manager, Institute of Contemporary Art, 
Boston, MA 

Mina Wright - Director of Grants Program, Massachusetts Cultural Council 

Michigan 

Anan Ameri - Director, Arab American National Museum, Dearborn, Ml 

Sandra Clark - Director, Michigan Historical Museum, Lansing, Ml 

Mel Drumm - Executive Director, Hands-on Museum, Ann Arbor, Ml 

Bonnie Ekdahl - Director, Ziibiwing Center, Mount Pleasant, Ml 

Teresa Goforth - Executive Director, Michigan Museum Association, Lansing, Ml 

Steven K. Hamp - Civic Leader, Chair, Michigan New Economy Initiative 

Debbie Mikula - Former Chief Operating Officer, ArtServe Michigan, Wixom, Ml 

Debra Polich - President and CEO, Art Train, Ann Arbor, Ml 

Judith Ann Rapanos - Chair, Michigan Humanities Council, Lansing, Ml 

Tim Shickles - Director, Sloan Museum, Flint, Ml 

New Mexico 

Stuart A. Ashman - Cabinet Secretary, New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, Santa Fe, NM 
Selena Connealy - Secretary, New Mexico Museums Association, and Chief of Education, New Mexico 
Natural History and Science Museum, Albuquerque, NM 
Eduardo Diaz - Executive Director, Hispanic Cultural Center, Albuquerque, NM 
William Field - Director, Spanish Colonial Arts Society, Santa Fe, NM 
John Grimes - Director, Institute of American Indian Arts Museum, Santa Fe, NM 
Tey Nunn - Visual Arts Director, Hispanic Cultural Center, Albuquerque, NM 
Sabrina Pratt - Executive Director, Santa Fe City Arts Commission, Santa Fe, NM 
Elena Sweeney - Deputy Secretary for Finance and Administration, New Mexico Department of Cul¬ 
tural Affairs, Santa Fe, NM 

Shelby Tisdale - Director, Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Santa Fe, NM 

Pennsylvania 

Peggy Amsterdam - Director, Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, Philadelphia, PA 

Nicholas Crosson - Research Analyst, Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, Philadelphia, PA 

Scott Doyle - Grants Administrator, Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, Harrisburg, PA 

Barbara Franco - Executive Director, Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, Harrisburg, PA 

Philip Horn- Director, Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, Harrisburg, PA 

Karen A. Lewis - Executive Director, Avenue of the Arts, Inc., Philadelphia, PA 

Janet MacGregor - Deputy Director, Pennsylvania Federation of Museums, Harrisburg, PA 

June O’Neill - Fund Manager, The Philadelphia Cultural Fund, Philadelphia, PA 

Brian Rogers - Deputy Executive Director, Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, Harrisburg, PA 


134 





Virginia 

Ann Andrus - State Grants Coordinator, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, VA 

Peggy J. Baggett - Executive Director, Virginia Commission for the Arts, Richmond, VA 

Margo Carlock - Executive Director, Virginia Association of Museums, Richmond, VA 

Beverly T. Fitzpatrick - Virginia Museum of Transportation, Roanoke, VA 

G. Larry Moffett - Interim President, Arts Council of Richmond, Richmond, VA 

Marion Naar - President, Cape Charles Historical Society, Cape Charles, VA 

Alexander Nyerges - Director, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, VA 

S. Waite Rawls III - Executive Director, Museum of the Confederacy, Richmond, VA 

Rob Vaughan - President, Virginia Foundation for Humanities, Charlottesville, VA 

Washington 

Ron Chew - Former Executive Director, Wing Luke Asian Museum, Seattle, WA 
Tim Close - Director, Museum of Glass, Tacoma, WA 
Mimi Gates - Director, Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, WA 

Laura Hopkins - Head of Programs and Exhibition Support, Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, WA 
David Nicandri - Director, Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma, WA 

Steve Ragleb Smith - Professor, Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 
Marsha Rooney - Senior Curator of History, Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture; President, 
Washington Museum Association, Spokane, WA 
Eric Taylor - Heritage Lead, 4Culture, Seattle, WA 

Kris Tucker - Executive Director, Washington State Arts Commission, Olympia, WA 

DC/National 

Ford Bell - President, American Association of Museums, Washington, DC 

Philip M. Katz - Assistant Director for Research, American Association of Museums, Washington, DC 
Elizabeth E. Merritt - Founding Director, Center for the Future of Museums, American Association of 
Museums, Washington, DC 

Terry Davis - President and CEO, American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, TN 

Al DeSena - Coordinator, Lifelong Learning Cluster (LLC), Division of Research on Learning in Formal 

and Informal Settings, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC 

Janet Rice Elman - Executive Director, Association of Children’s Museums, Washington, DC 

Andy Finch - Co-Director of Government Affairs, Association of Art Museum Directors, Washington, DC 

Tom Lindsay - Deputy Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC 

Thomas Phelps - Director of Public Programs, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC 

Sean Smith - Director of Government and Public Relations, Association of Science and Technology 

Centers, Washington, DC 

Bonnie VanDorn - Executive Director, Association of Science and Technology Centers, Washington, DC 








APPENDIX F: PARTICIPANTS AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS 
CONVENED IN MARCH 2008 


March 10, 2008, at the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio 

National Museum and Library Services Board Member 

Jeffrey H. Patchen 
President and CEO 
Children’s Museum of Indianapolis 
Indianapolis, Indiana 


Speakers 


David Chesebrough 
President and CEO 
COSI 

Columbus, Ohio 
John Fraser 

Director, Public Research and Evaluation 
Wildlife Conservation Society Institute 
Bronx, New York 

Bruce Harkey 
Executive Director 
Franklin Park Conservatory 
Columbus, Ohio 

Julie Plenahan 
Executive Director 
Ohio Arts Council 
Columbus, Ohio 


Donald W. Murphy 
President and CEO 

The National Underground Railroad Freedom 
Center 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

Patricia Murphy 
Executive Director 
Oberlin Heritage Center 
Oberlin, Ohio 

Alicia Oddi 

Grants and Services Director 
Greater Columbus Arts Council 
Columbus, Ohio 


William K. Laidlaw, Jr. 
Executive Director and CEO 
Ohio Historical Society 
Columbus, Ohio 


136 






March 12, 2008, at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri 

National Museum and Library Services Board Members 


Christina Orr-Cahall 
Director 

Norton Museum of Art 
West Palm Beach, Florida 

Harry Robinson, Jr. 

President and CEO 
African American Museum 
Dallas, Texas 

Speakers 

Sharon Sanders Brooks 
Councilwoman, District 3 
Kansas City, Missouri 

Greg Carroll 
Executive Director 
The American Jazz Museum 
Kansas City, Missouri 

Gregory M. Glore 
Community Volunteer 
Kansas City, Missouri 

Christopher Leitch 
Director 

Kansas City Museum at Corinthian Hall 
Kansas City, Missouri 

Fred Logan 
Chairman 

Arts Council of Metropolitan Kansas City 
Kansas City, Missouri 


Mindi Love 
Director 

Johnson County Museum 
Shawnee, Kansas 

Mary Kennedy McCabe 
Executive Director 
Mid-America Arts Alliance 
Kansas City, Missouri 

Robert D. Regnier 
President, Bank of Blue Valley 
Chair, Greater Kansas City Chamber of Com¬ 
merce 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Kate Viens 

Executive Director 

New England Museum Association 

Arlington, Massachusetts 

Marc Wilson 

Menefee D. and Mary Louis Blackwell 
Director and CEO 
The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 
Kansas City, Missouri 




APPENDIX F: PARTICIPANTS AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS 
CONVENED IN MARCH 2008 


March 14, 2008, at the Oakland Museum of California, Oakland, California 

National Museum and Library Services Board Members 

Katherine M. B. Berger 
Trustee 

Berger Collection Educational Trust 
Berryville, Virginia 

Kevin Starr 

State Librarian Emeritus of California 
San Francisco, California 


Speakers 


Barbara Ando 
Associate Director 
Lawrence Hall of Science 
University of California 
Berkeley, California 


Ralph Lewin 
Executive Director 

California Council for the Humanities 
San Francisco, California 


Dennis Bartels 
Executive Director 
Exploratorium 
San Francisco, California 


William Moreno 
Executive Director 
Claremont Museum of Art 
Claremont, California 


David Crosson 
Executive Director 
California Historical Society 
San Francisco, California 


Kevin Starr 

State Librarian Emeritus of California 
San Francisco, California 


Lori Fogarty 
Director 

Oakland Museum of California 
Oakland, California 


Richard Winefield 
Executive Director 
Bay Area Discovery Museum 
Sausalito, California 


Phil Kohlmetz 
Executive Director 
Western Railway Museum 
Suisan City, California 


Sheryl Wong 

Chairman 

Board of Trustees 

Oakland Museum of California Foundation 
Piedmont, California 





- 


APPENDIX G: ADDITIONAL TABLES: IMLS AND NSF GRANTS BY 
PROGRAM AREA, EARMARK APPROPRIATION BY SUBCOMMITTEE 


Each of IMLS s museum grant programs is connected to the mandates to assist, encourage, 
and support museum services. Table AG.l lists IMLS support to museums by program between 
2000 and 2006. Since 2000, the amount of money distributed by the agency has increased 
by $9,681,000. The Museums for America program saw a $1,635,000 increase; the Conserva¬ 
tion Project Support saw a $462,000 increase; and the National Leadership program saw a 
$4,870,000 increase. Two programs, the Museum Assessment Program and the Conservation 
Assessment Program, saw a slight decrease between 2000 and 2006. The remaining increase of 
$2,735,000 was realized through three new programs: 21st Century Museum Professionals, Native 
Alaskan/Native Hawaiian Museum Services, and Museum Grants for African American History and 
Culture. As an institution-focused agency, rather than a discipline-focused agency like NEA, NEH, 
and NSF, IMLS directs support to a wider range of museums. It also delivers more grants to muse¬ 
ums than the other three agencies combined. 


Table AG.l. IMLS Support to Museums by Program for Years 2000-2006, In thousands of dollars 


Program Name 

2000 2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Museums for America 1 

15,517 

15,483 

15,482 

15,381 

16,342 

16,864 

17,152 

Museum Assessment Program 

450 

449 

450 

447 

447 

446 

442 

21st Century Museum Professionals 2 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

992 

982 

Conservation Project Support 

2,310 

2,305 

2,310 

2,792 

2,782 

2,788 

2,772 

Conservation Assessment Program 

820 

818 

820 

815 

815 

813 

807 

Native American/Native Hawaiian 
Museum Services Program 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

843 

911 

National Leadership Grants to Museums 

3,050 

3,542 

5,167 

5,663 

6,891 

7,539 

7,920 

Museum Grants for African American 
History and Culture 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

842 

Total 

22,147 

22,597 

24,229 

25,098 

27,277 

30,285 

31,828 


Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars. 

Source: Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2008. 

iThe Museums for America Program has previously been known as “General Operating Support” and “Learning Oppor¬ 
tunities Grants.” 

2 Prior to FY 2005, funding for the 21st Century Museum Professionals Program was included in the National Leader¬ 
ship Grants. 

The National Science Foundation supports strong science education at all levels. As such, NSF 
grant-making differs from that of IMLS in both the number and size of awards. Between 2000 and 
2006, NSF made 280 grants to museums in 28 states. Over these years, NSF grants to museums 
were made by two offices and seven directorates (see Table AG.2). The median amount for grants 
distributed over this period was $209,343, and grants ranged in amounts from $3,000 (a one-time 
grant to New York City’s American Museum of Natural History in 2000) to $11,256,444 (awarded 
to the Exploratorium in San Francisco over six years). 


139 









































APPENDIX G: ADDITIONAL TABLES: IMLS AND NSF GRANTS BY 
PROGRAM AREA, EARMARK APPROPRIATION BY SUBCOMMITTEE 


Table AG.2. Distribution of Obligated NSF Grant Money by NSF Directorate, 2000-2006 


Directorate 

Dollars 

% 

Education and Human Resources 

$200,000,000 

69.0% 

Biology 

$53,916,242 

18.6% 

Geosciences 

$10,988,431 

3.8% 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences 

$8,956,936 

3.1% 

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences 

$5,784,080 

2.0% 

Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering 

$3,918,280 

1.4% 

Engineering 

$3,280,560 

1.1% 

Office of Polar Programs 

$2,768,195 

1.0% 

Office of Director 

$173,512 

0.1% 

Total 

$289,786,236 

100% 


Source: National Science Foundation, 2008. 


Table AG.3 below provides the distribution of federal earmarks to museums discussed in 
Section VII of the report. From FY 2001-FY 2006, 1,214 earmarks were distributed to museums 
through 12 federal appropriation subcommittees, with 92% appropriated through the Labor, Health 
and Human Services and Education; Housing and Urban Development; Transportation; and Interior 
Subcommittees. 

Table AG. 3 Number of Appropriations by Subcommittee, 2001-2006 


Subcommittee 

No. of Appropriations 

Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 

544 

Housing and Urban Development 

361 

Transportation 

115 

Interior 

98 

Energy 

31 

Commerce 

30 

Defense 

12 

District of Columbia 

10 

Agriculture 

6 

Legislative Branch 

3 

Treasury 

3 

Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 

1 

Total 

1,214 


Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008. 


140 














































— 


APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


About the Survey Format 

The survey is divided into three main sections. The first section asks for general information about 
your institution - its size, focus area, governance and visitor information. In the second section, 
you II find a series of questions about your museum’s budget over the last fiscal year. For this sec¬ 
tion, it may be helpful to refer to figures contained in your institution's year end financial report or 
IRS Form 990. The final section focuses on public funding practices at the local, state and federal 
levels and the extent to which your organization has been helped by these sources of support. 

• Most of the questions in this survey are simple Yes/No or multiple choice format. The finance 
section (section two) asks for more detailed information regarding your institution’s budget 
over the last fiscal year. You may need to consult your institution’s most recent annual report/ 
financial statement or IRS Form 990 (if your institution is a non-profit organization) in order to 
complete this section. 

• Because some survey questions logically follow from others, there are a number of skip pat¬ 
terns in the survey. Directions for the ‘skips’ can be found next to the appropriate answer. 

• We ask that you please try not to leave any questions blank. If there are questions that you 
cannot answer or that seem unclear to you, feel free to contact the survey director at (202) 
261-5821 for clarification. 

Survey Terms and Concepts 

• We have tried to avoid using jargon in the survey. However, there are a few terms that may 
require a bit more explanation. In those cases you will find the key term highlighted with blue 
letters. Definitions for these terms are provided in the glossary in the back of the survey. 

• For questions that ask for a number or dollar amount, please provide your best estimate. 
Remember, these figures will constitute a national profile, so even a rough estimate is useful. 

• We realize than some of you may work for several institutions. However, we ask that you com¬ 
plete the questionnaire for the SINGLE institution identified in the first part of the survey. 

• If you are responding as one entity within a parent institution, please fill out the survey only for 
your institution not other entities within in your parent institution. 

Assurance of Confidentiality 

All studies conducted by the Urban Institute are subject to Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. 
The Urban Institute’s IRB is the group designated to approve, monitor, and review behavioral 
research involving humans with the aim to protect the rights and welfare of the subjects. As part 
of the review we have pledged to keep your individual responses, whether submitted online or on 
paper, completely confidential. Only the aggregate data will be reported; your individual responses 
will never be published or identified by The Urban Institute or the Institute of Museum and Library 
Services (IMLS). 


141 







APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


Your name will not be associated in any way with the information collected about you or with the 
research findings from this study. The researchers will not share information about you unless 
required by law or unless you give written permission. 

For More Information 

For questions about the survey or for technical assistance with online submissions, contact Carlos 
Manjarrez at 202-261-5821, or cmanjarr@ui.urban.org. 

Section 1. Institutional Information 

This first series of questions will provide us with general information about your museum s location, 
staffing size, governance structure and visitorship. 

1. What is the name of your institution?_ 

2. Please enter the following address information for your institution: 

Street address:_ 

City:___ 

State:_Zip:_ 

Web address/URL:___ 

3. Please check one of the following that BEST describes your institution. Please select only one. 


□ Aquarium 

□ Arboretum/botanical garden 

□ Art museum 

□ Children’s/Youth Museum 

□ Historic House/Site 

□ History museum 


□ Nature center 

□ Planetarium 

□ Science/Technology Center/Museum 

□ Zoo 

□ Other (please specify):_ 


□ Historical society 

□ Natural history museum 

4. Which of the following BEST describes your institution’s governing authority? Please select only one 

□ College, university or other academic entity (proceed to quest. 4a) 

□ Non-profit, non-governmental organization or foundation (skip to quest. 5) 

□ Corporate or for-profit organization (skip to quest. 5) 

□ Federal government (skip to quest. 5) 

□ State government (skip to quest. 5) 

□ Local government (county or municipal) (skip to quest. 5) 

□ Tribal government (skip to quest. 5) 

□ Other (please specify):_ 


142 
















4a. If your institution is governed by a college, university or other academic entity, which of the fol¬ 
lowing academic entities MOST CLOSELY describes your governing authority? Please select only one. 

□ Private college or university 

□ State college or university 

□ City, county or other municipal college or university 

□ Other (please specify):_ 


5. Please indicate the number of PAID... 



Please enter the 
number below. 

No Staff Positions 
in this Category 

1 Don’t Know 

FULL TIME positions as of 
October 1, 2007? 


□ 

□ 

PART TIME positions as of 
October 1, 2007? 


□ 

□ 


6. Please enter the number of visitors you served last year in each of the following categories? 
Please enter your best guess In the estimated number box below. If your Institutions had no visitors 
for a given category select “None”. 



Estimated Number 

None 

Not applicable/No 
such service 

1 Don’t Know 

On site 


□ 

□ 

□ 

Off site (e.g. traveling 
exhibitions, bookmobiles, 
educational programs) 


□ 

□ 

□ 

Electronic (e.g. visits 
to Web site, electronic 
distribution lists, electronic 
discussion groups) 


□ 

□ 

□ 


7. Does your institution have a general admission fee for: 

For each row, please choose one answer from the options provided. If you select “Yes”, list the stan¬ 
dard admission fee In the space provided. 



Yes 

No 

Suggested Only 

1 Don’t Know 

Standard, 
non-member 
admission fee. 

adults? 

□ 

□ 

a 

□ 

% _* 

children under 12? 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

s_. 

senior citizens? 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

S_ X 

students? 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

% _. 


8. Does your institution own collections (living or non-living) or manage such collections belonging 
to others on an ongoing basis? 

□ Yes 

□ No 
















APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


SURVEY TIP: The next section will ask about your institution’s finances for the last fiscal year. 

You may want to have the last year’s financial statement on hand in order to complete this section 
quickly. 

Section 2. Financial Information 

The questions below address your institution’s budget. Please provide as much detailed information 
as possible as it will help us develop national estimates of public support for museums across the 
country. 

9. What is the most recently completed fiscal year for your institution? 

□ 2006 

□ 2007 

□ Other: 

10. Please indicate your institution’s total operating income and expenses for the most recent fiscal 
year? 

Enter the total dollar amount for the most recently completed fiscal year. I Don’t Know 
Operating income |_ □ 

Operating expenses _ □ 

11. Please separate your total operating income for the most recently completed fiscal year into the 
following categories: 

For each row, insert the total dollar amount for most recently completed fiscal year. If none of your 
operating expenses for the last fiscal year came from this source, enter a “0” in the box and click 
the button on the right. 


$ for most recent FY No operating expenses from this source. 


Total funds from private sources... 

1, 

□ 

Total funds from earned income. 

1_, 

□ 

Total funds from investment income used 
for operational expense... 

$_, 

□ 

Total funds from government sources... 

$ 

□ 


12a. If an amount was given in the government sources section of question 11, please separate the 
“government sources” funds received by the level of government providing the support: 

For each row, insert the percentage of government source funding received in the last fiscal year. 
PLEASE NOTE: THE NUMBERS IN THE COLUMN MUST ADD TO 100. If no money was received 
from a given source, enter “0”. 


144 












SURVEY TIP: The numbers in the column above should sum to 100 in order for the information to 
be recorded accurately. This will allow us to calculate the proportion of government funds obtained 
from different levels of government. Thank you for your help and attention to detail. 


Percent of government source funding from federal government 

% from source (Column 
sum must equal 100) 

Percent of government source funding from state government 


Percent of government source funding from local government 


Percent of government source funding from tribal government 


13. Please indicate your institution’s total non-operating income and expenses for the most recent 
fiscal year? 



Enter the total dollar amount for the most recently completed fiscal year. 

1 Don’t Know 

Non-operating income 

$_, 

□ 

Non-operating expenses 

1 

□ 


14. Please list your total capital expenditures for the most recently completed fiscal year. 



Capital expenditures for last 
fiscal year 

None 

Enter the total dollar amount in the box provided. If your 
institution had NO capital expenditures in the last fiscal year enter 
a ‘ O’ in the box and click “None”. 

S_, 

□ 


15. Does your institution own the building(s) in which it operates? 

□ Yes (skip to 16) 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 16) 

15a. If you answered No to question 15, does the parent organization own the building? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ Not applicable (no parent) 

□ I Don’t Know 

16. Are you currently engaged in a capital campaign? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know 


145 












APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


Section 3. Public Funding Mechanisms 

The questions in the next section cover a wide range of support mechanisms for museums from 
local government (city, county and township) sources. A similar set of questions will be asked 
regarding state government support. 

17. Does your local government (city, county, or township) provide direct financial support to muse¬ 
ums in your community through a competitive grant process? 

□ Yes (proceed to 17a) 

□ No (skip to 17d) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 17d) 

17a. Which of the following institutional needs do your local government programs or funding initia¬ 
tives support? Check all that apply. 

□ Unrestricted funds for museums to use at their discretion 

□ Restricted funds for museum-related activities (collections care, exhibits, research, educa¬ 
tional programming) 

□ Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, maintenance, other 
non-programmatic operating expenses) 

□ Restricted funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction 

□ Restricted funds for acquisition 

□ Other:_ 

17b. What type of local government support do you think is most important for institutions like 
yours? Please select one. 

□ Unrestricted funds for museums to use at their discretion 

□ Restricted funds for museum-related activities (collections care, exhibits, research, educa¬ 
tional programming) 

□ Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, maintenance, other 
non-programmatic operating expenses) 

□ Restricted funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction 

□ Restricted funds for acquisition 

□ Other:_ 

17c. Has your institution applied for support from local government (city, county, township) through 
a competitive grant process in the last three years? 

□ Yes (proceed to 17cl) 

□ No (skip to 17d) 

□ I Don't Know (skip to 17d) 


146 







17cl. How many times has your institution applied for support from local government sources 
through a competitive grant process in the last three years? Please select only one. 

□ 1 Time 

□ 2 Times 

□ 3 Times 

□ 4 Times 

□ 5 Times 

□ 6-10 Times 

□ 11-15 Times 

□ More than 15 Times 

17c2. To which local government agencies did your institution apply for support in the last three 
years? Check all that apply. 

□ Local Humanities Council 

□ Local Department of Tourism/Conventions 

□ Local Arts Agency 

□ City/County/Regional Transportation Authority 

□ Local School System 

□ Local Economic/Community Development Office 

□ Local Library or Library System 

□ Local Parks Department 

□ Other:_ 

17c3. Did your institution receive support from a local government agency through a competitive 
grant process in the last three years? 

□ Yes (proceed to 17c3_l) 

□ No (skip to 17d) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 17d) 

17d. Does your local government use tourism taxes to provide direct support to museums and other 
cultural institutions in your community? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know 

17e. Does your local government use property tax or general fund monies to provide direct support 
for museums and other cultural institutions in your community? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know 


147 






APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


17f. Does your local government use general sales, retail and amusement taxes to provide direct 
support to museums and other cultural institutions in your community? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know 

18. Does your institution receive regular (annual or semi-annual), non-competitive support from any 
local government sources? 

□ Yes (proceed to 18a) 

□ No (skip to 19) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 19) 

18a. What type of non-competitive support does your institution receive from your local govern¬ 
ment? Check all that apply. If you select “other”, please describe the non-competitive support in 
the field provided. 

□ Direct financial support 

□ Lease of property 

□ Other:_ 

19. Has your institution received in-kind contributions from local government in the last 3 fiscal 
years? 

□ Yes (proceed to 19a) 

□ No (skip to 20) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 20) 

19a. If your institution has received in-kind support, lease describe the MOST significant form of 
in-kind support your institution has received from local government source in the last three years. 


19b. What was the value of this in-kind support? 



Estimated value 

Value Not 
Assessed 

1 Don’t Know 

Please estimate the value of in-kind support over a 
year’s time: 

$_* 

□ 

□ 


20. Has your institution EVER received a donation of property from local government? 

□ Yes (proceed to 20a) 

□ No (skip to 21) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 21) 


148 










20a. What was the value of largest donation of property? 




Value Not 

Estimated value Assessed I Don’t Know 

Please estimate the value of property donation 

here: |_ i >-« □ 


20b. During which fiscal year was this property donated? FY. 


21. Does your local government have low interest loan programs for... 



Yes 

No 

1 Don’t Know 

museum programming? 

□ 

□ 

□ 

museum operations? 

□ 

□ 

□ 

capital expenditures? 

□ 

□ 

□ 


22. What is the MOST significant challenge your institution faces in applying for local government 
support? Please select only one. 

□ Application process is too cumbersome/time consuming 

□ Local grant monies are too restrictive 

□ Reporting/evaluation demands are too high given the grant amounts 

□ Required funding match is difficult to obtain 

□ Other: _ 

23. What opportunities does local government support present your institution that other funding 
sources do not? 


In the following section we ask about funding from STATE GOVERNMENT. You will note that some 
of the questions are patterned after the questions asked in the local government support section. 
Pairing the questions in this way will help us make more direct comparisons across the different 
levels of government. 

24. Does your state government provide direct financial support to museums in your state through 
a competitive grant process? 

□ Yes (proceed to 24a) 

□ No (skip to 25) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 25) 


149 










APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


24a. Which of the following institutional needs do your state government programs or funding initia¬ 
tives support? Check all that apply. 

□ Unrestricted funds for museums to use at their discretion 

□ Restricted funds for museum-related activities (collections care, exhibits, research, educa¬ 
tional programming) 

□ Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, maintenance, other 
non-programmatic operating expenses) 

□ Restricted funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction 

□ Restricted funds for acquisition 

□ Other:_ 

24b. What type of state government support do you think is most important for institutions like 
yours? Please select one. 

□ Unrestricted funds for museums to use at their discretion 

□ Restricted funds for museum-related activities (collections care, exhibits, research, educa¬ 
tional programming) 

□ Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, maintenance, other 
non-programmatic operating expenses) 

□ Restricted funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction 

□ Restricted funds for acquisition 

□ Other:_ 

24c. Has your institution applied for support from state government through a competitive grant 
process in the last three years? 

□ Yes (proceed to 24cl) 

□ No (skip to 25) 

□ I Don't Know (skip to 25) 

24cl. How many times has your institution applied for support from state government sources 
through a competitive process in the last three years? 

Please chose one. 

□ 1 Time 

□ 2 Times 

□ 3 Times 

□ 4 Times 

□ 5 Times 

□ 6-10 Times 

□ 11-15 Times 

□ More than 15 Times 


150 







24c2. To which state government agencies did your institution apply for support in the last three 
years? Chose all that apply. 

□ State Humanities Council 

□ State-Level Department of Tourism 

□ State Arts Agency 

□ State-level Transportation Authority 

□ State Education Office 

□ State Economic/Community Development Authority 

□ State Library 

□ State Parks Department 

□ Other:_ 

24c3. Did your institution receive support from a state government agency through a competitive 
grant process in the last three years? 

□ Yes (proceed to 24c3_l) 

□ No (skip to 25) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 25) 

24c3_l. If your institution did receive support from state government in the last three years via a 
competitive grant process, which of the following state government agencies awarded your institu¬ 
tion a competitive grant? Check all that apply. 

□ State Humanities Council 

□ State-Level Department of Tourism 

□ State Arts Agency 

□ State-level Transportation Authority 

□ State Education Office 

□ State Economic/Community Development Authority 

□ State Library 

□ State Parks Department 

□ Other:_ 

25. Does your state government use tourism taxes to provide direct support to museums and other 
cultural institutions in your community? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know 

26. Does your state government use property tax or general fund monies to provide direct support 
for museums and other cultural institutions in your community? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know 








APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


28. Does your institution receive regular (annual or semi-annual), non-competitive support from any 
state-level government sources? 

□ Yes (proceed to 28a) 

□ No (skip to 29) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 29) 

28a. What type of non-competitive support does your institutions receive from your state govern¬ 
ment? Check all that apply. If you select “other”, please describe the non-competitive support in 
the field provided. 

□ Direct financial support 

□ Lease of property 

□ Other:_ 

29. Has your institution received in kind contributions from state government source in the last 3 
fiscal years? 

□ Yes (proceed to 29a) 

□ No (skip to 30) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 30) 

29a. Please describe the MOST significant in kind support your institution has received from state 
government sources in the last three years. 


29b. What was the value of this in-kind support? 



Estimated value 

Value Not 
Assessed 

1 Don’t Know 

Please estimate the value of in-kind support over a 
year’s time: 

$_, 

□ 

□ 


30. Has your institution EVER received a donation of property from state government? 

□ Yes (proceed to 30a) 

□ No (skip to 31) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 31) 


30a. What was the value of LARGEST donation of property? 



Estimated value 

Value Not 
Assessed 

1 Don’t Know 

Please estimate the value of property donation 
here: 

$_, 

□ 

□ 


152 










30b. During which fiscal year was this property donated? FY_ 

31. Does your state government have low interest loan programs for... 



Yes 

No 

1 Don’t Know 

museum programming? 

□ 

□ 

□ 

museum operations? 

□ 

□ 

□ 

capital expenditures? 

□ 

□ 

□ 


32. What is the MOST significant challenge your institution faces in applying for state government sup¬ 
port? Please select only one. 

□ Application process is too cumbersome/time consuming 

□ Local grant monies are too restrictive 

□ Reporting/evaluation demands are too high given the grant amounts 

□ Required funding match is difficult to obtain 

□ Other:_ 

33. What opportunities does state government support present your institution that other funding 
sources do not? 


34. Are direct state budget earmarks an option available to museums in your state? Please choose one. 

□ Yes (proceed to 34a) 

□ No (skip to 35) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 35) 

34a. If state budget earmarks are an option in your state, has your institution EVER tried to secure 
an earmark from the state government? 

□ Yes (proceed to 34al) 

□ No (skip to 35) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 35) 

34al. For which of the following need areas did your institution seek earmarked funds from your 
state government? Check all that apply. 

□ Physical improvements (capital construction/renovation) 

□ Conservation of collections 

□ Educational programs 

□ Outreach 

□ Other:__ 


153 













APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


34a2. Did your institution EVER RECEIVE an earmark from state government? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know 

34a3. Did your institution try to secure an earmark from the state government in the LAST YEAR? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know 

The questions below address public funding from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This is the final 
series of questions in the public funding section, which is the last section of the survey. Thanks for 
hanging in there. 

35. Has your institution EVER applied for support from federal government sources through a 
competitive grant process? 

□ Yes (proceed to 35a) 

□ No (skip to 36) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 36) 

35a. If your institution has EVER applied for support from a federal government source, to which 
federal government agencies did your museum apply? Check all that apply. 

□ Institute of Museum and Library Services 

□ National Endowment for the Arts 

□ National Endowment for the Humanities 

□ Department of Education 

□ Department of Transportation (National Historic Bridges Program, etc.) 

□ National Science Foundation 

□ Department of Interior (National Park Service, etc.) 

□ Department of Housing and Urban Development 

□ Other:_ 

35b. How many times has your institution applied for support from federal government sources 
through a competitive grant process in the last three years? Please select only one. 

□ Zero (haven’t applied in last 3 years) 

□ 1 time 

□ 2 times 

□ 3 times 

□ 4 times 

□ 5 times 

□ 6-10 times 

□ 11-15 times 

□ More than 15 times 


154 








35c. Has your institution EVER received support from a federal government agency through a 
competitive grant process? Please select only one. 

□ Yes (proceed to 35cl) 

□ No (skip to 36) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 36) 

35cl. From which agency (or agencies) did your museum receive competitive grant support? 

Check all that apply. 

□ Institute of Museum and Library Services 

□ National Endowment for the Arts 

□ National Endowment for the Humanities 

□ Department of Education 

□ Department of Transportation (National Historic Bridges Program, etc.) 

□ National Science Foundation 

□ Department of Interior (National Park Service, etc.) 

□ Department of Housing and Urban Development 

□ Other:___ 

36. What is the MOST significant challenge your institution faces in applying for federal govern¬ 
ment support? 

□ Application process is too cumbersome/time consuming 

□ Local grant monies are too restrictive 

□ Reporting/evaluation demands are too high given the grant amounts 

□ Required funding match is difficult to obtain 

□ Other:_ 

37. What opportunities does federal government support present your institution that other funding 
sources do not? 


38. Has your institution EVER tried to secure an earmark from the federal government? 

□ Yes (proceed to 38a) 

□ No (skip to 39) 

□ I Don’t Know (skip to 39) 


155 









APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


38a. For which of the following need areas did your institution seek earmarked funds from the 
federal government? Check all that apply. 

□ Physical improvements (capital construction/renovation) 

□ Conservation of collections 

□ Educational programs 

□ Outreach 

□ Other:_ 

38b. Did your institution try to secure a federal government earmark in: 



Yes 

No 

1 Don’t Know 

FY 2006 

□ 

□ 

□ 

FY 2007 

□ 

□ 

□ 

FY 2007 

□ 

□ 

□ 


38c. Did your institution EVER RECEIVE an earmark from the federal government? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ I Don’t Know 


39. We’ve provided the space below for any additional comments or suggestions you may have for 
IMLS or other federal funding agencies regarding support programs for American museums. 

As we mentioned at the start of the survey, these responses are kept confidential and will not be 
attributed to individual institutions. 


Below we ask for contact information for the person responding to the survey. This information will 
be used only if we need to clarify a response. The Urban Institute will keep this information, like all 
the information you provided in this survey, completely confidential. 

To be completed by lead person completing or coordinating the survey. 

Name of person completing the survey:_ 

Title:_ 

Phone number:_ 

Email address:_ 

Would you like us to send an e-mail to the address listed above when the final report is available 
for public release? 

□ Yes 

□ No 


156 













May we have permission to include the name of your institution on a published list of survey par¬ 
ticipants? Again, your survey responses will not be linked to your name; results will be reported only 
in aggregate. 

□ Yes 

□ No 

This concludes the Museum Public Finance survey. 

Thank you once again for taking the time to participate in this study. 

Please return your survey by January 31, 2008 to: 

Museum Public Finance Survey 
The Metro Center 
The Urban Institute 
2100 M Street NW 
Washington, DC 20037 
or fax to: 202-872-9322 

About the Institute of Museum and Library Services 

The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the 
nation’s 122,000 libraries and 17,500 museums. The Institute’s mission is to create strong librar¬ 
ies and museums that connect people to information and ideas. The Institute works at the national 
level and in coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowl¬ 
edge; enhance learning and innovation; and support professional development. To learn more about 
the Institute, please visit www.imls.gov. For more information, including grant applications, contact 
I MLS at 1800 M Street, NW, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036-5802, phone 202-653-4657 or 
e-mail imlsinfo@imls.gov. 

About the Urban Institute 

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization estab¬ 
lished in Washington, D.C., in 1968. Its staff investigates the social, economic, and governance 
problems confronting the nation and evaluates the public and private means to alleviate them. 
Through work that ranges from broad conceptual studies to administrative and technical assis¬ 
tance, Institute researchers contribute to the stock of knowledge available to guide decision-making 
in the public interest. To learn more about the Urban Institute, please visit www.urban.org. For 
information on the Museum Finance Study, contact Carlos Manjarrez, The Urban Institute, 2100 M 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, 202-833-7200, cmanjarr@ui.urban.org, or www.urban.org. 


157 





APPENDIX H: MUSEUM PUBLIC FINANCE SURVEY 


Museum Public Finance Survey Glossary 

Capital expenditure - money spent on purchasing or construction of buildings or other major fixed 
assets. Capital expenditures are subject to depreciation. 

Earmark - refers to legislative provisions that direct funds to be spent on specific projects (or 
directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees). 

Earned income - money earned by providing goods or services where the amount paid is compara¬ 
ble to the actual value of goods and services. This includes admissions revenue, food and museum 
store sales, building rental, fairs and festivals, etc. The following types of revenue do not qualify as 
earned income: undesignated, unrestricted or general operating grants; contributions from individu¬ 
als; bequests; and sponsorships of special events. 

General sales, retail and amusement taxes - include general sales tax increases that designate 
a portion of the revenue for museums and other cultural institutions; or amusement taxes, which 
target entertainment consumers and return the value of that tax to its related industry and/or spe¬ 
cial tax districts—such as cultural districts—which may tax goods and services in area at a speci¬ 
fied level, usually for a fixed period of time. 

Governing authority - the both with legal and fiduciary responsibility for the museum and for 
approving museum policy (for example, board of commissioners, board of directors, board of man¬ 
agers, board of regents, board of trustees, city council, commission). 

Non-operating income and expenses - income and expenses related to temporary or permanently 
restricted funds, such as endowment contributions and pledges, all realized capital gains and 
losses that are rolled back into the principle, income from capital campaigns and capital expendi¬ 
tures. 

Operating income and expenses - income generated by or expenditures supporting the museums 
general operations in a given fiscal year, including exhibitions, educations, conservation, collections 
management, collections acquisitions, research, training, development and administration. This 
includes any portion of income from the endowment that is applied to operating expenses in a 
given year. It does not include capital expenditures. 

Parent organization - a larger organization within which a museum operates. Examples of a parent 
organizations are colleges or universities; tribal, municipal, state or federal government; corporate 
foundations. 

Tourism tax - a municipal, non-property tax that is typically added to hotel/motel costs, retail 
alcohol purchase, rental vehicles and/or restaurant food sales. 

*Special thanks are due to the American Association of Museums for glossary terms drawn from 
the 2006 Museum Financial Information report. 


158 








• !»••• 


INSTITUTE of . .. 

MuseumandLibrary 

SERVICES 











